Sport catagory

General Messages Post you pics as well

Postby mmkarp » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:27 am

I was informed by another fellow ultralight pilot that as of September 1, 2004 twin engine ultralights will not be allowed to fly, or you will be fined.
Does anyone have any info on this. It sounds like the government is really trying to cut us Lazair owners out of the picture. I would think that there would be a "grandfather clause" somewhere. Lets have some responce on this.

Marc :angry:
mmkarp Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:34 pm

Postby lazair » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:26 pm

Marc , Interesting- Can you provide some backup for that statement ?

Are you talking about the new sport pilot regs?

Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:25 am

Postby Chappy » Fri Jul 30, 2004 2:09 pm


If you have a single seat Lazair that still complies with Part 103 and you leave it that way - not try to convert it to the experimental light sport plane category for some insane reason - then you are good to go. Part 103 has not been changed with the release of the LSA rule.

Now, two seat Lazairs NOT flown under the training exemptions will have to be eventually converted to an experimental light sport AIRCRAFT. It looks like the FAA will give you a few years to convert from being an illegally "fat" UL to a legal ELSA. Unfortunately, twin engined LSA's are prohibited (but again, that MAY not hold for the experimental class?). I suspect older planes like ours may be able to eventually qualify for exemptions - we will see. The other option would be to convert to a single engine, which has been done in the past by a few owners over the years. If you have a training exemption, you will loose it in a few years too. Because our 2 place Lazairs were not built by the factory, these trainers should be eligible for conversion to experimental LSA. I forget the actual dates of the deadlines.

You can go to almost any sport plane organization's website (EAA, AOPA, USUA, etc.) and find a link to the new rule so you can download your very own copy to study. It's ONLY 452 pages long (and that doesn't include all the soon to be released supporting documents and Advisory circulars to come)!

Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA

Postby xgary » Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:16 pm

screw the governent regulators-------

when and if they say no to Lazair iswhen you see more fly with No registrations. but that only my opinion LOL

I have no idea about the us regulations
Shorty .............
User avatar
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:43 pm
Location: SW Ontario

Postby rayjb60 » Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:29 pm

In the USA, Al Queda members dont care about silly rules
and fly what ever they want,
so if the FAA thinks that twin engines hampers safety
and endangers the public more than protects it,
then they are misguided
and have buried their heads in their nether regions!!!!!

I just hate stupid rules...and you can tell how stupid
they are by the size of the supporting document.

The more pages required to explain it, means its
obviously not common sense, and just a load of

(ie No jet engines with over 300lbs thrust allowed on ultralights!
and I dont need to explain anything.....its clear to see the danger of
having a 2:1 thrust ratio on a plane stressed to a little over 2 g's....duh!!!
I dont need 1 page to explain that...think of all the trees Ive saved)

I mean 452 pages......youve got to be kidding!
Thats a lot of wool pulling over our eyes...dont you think!

OK...finished my Rantings.

Carry on and enjoy......they will have to catch us first and we can go quite a ways on our 5 gals of gas ;)

<H5>Nothing is impossible...Even the word tells you Im-Possible!!!</ H5>
User avatar
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA

Postby ozzie » Mon Aug 02, 2004 4:27 pm

i've been fed those type of rules for so long now they are the only ones i understand now.. we have had a similar setup here in australia for some time now( twice as many pages) no jet engines period and no twin engines period except for the lazair thank god for grandfather clauses.good luck with your new rules,,ozzie
User avatar
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: australia

Postby Guest » Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:57 pm

I really have mixed feeling about the new rule. Being a private pilot, and being part owner in a Light Sport class plane (Aeronca Champ), I will now be permitted to fly it without having to keep a current medical, I think. We could convert the plane to the new rule, but I'm sure we won't as we suspect it would reduce it's resale value when the time comes to shut down the club.

As far as "Fat" Ultralights are concerned, I don't really love them all that much. Most strive to be "proper little planes", but pretty much fail, being awfully slow, uncomfortable, burn lots of gas - in other words, not very good "airplanes". Quite a few of them don't fly all that nice, either. Anyone remember the Star Flight (not the FlightStar)? What a bag of rocks! What has always intrigued me are REAL Ultralights, Part 103 legal class machines. The Lazair is one of the best. The Kasperwing is another. There were lots of others in the early eighties, most now almost forgotten. Little did I realize when I saw my first Phantom in 1983 that it was the future trend in Ultralights that would basically kill off the future development of more efficient new designs of legal 103 ultralights.

Now, with the release of Sport Plane/Sport Pilot, most of the pilot orgs. and publications are predicting the demise of Ultralights. I think - AND HOPE! - that they are wrong. FAR Part 103, all two or three pages of it, was a gift that we probably won't ever see from our government again. It's inconceivable that it won't continue to foster the purist, most fun type of flying with the least hassel. If the FAA actually enforces sport plane (Hey, the SAY they well be! <insert sarcasm here>), Part 103's going to still look pretty good.

Chappy, in Virginia

BTW, I think two place Lazairs are eligible for license under the old experiment homebuilt class, which hasn't changed with the release of the Sport Plane rule.

Postby Chappy » Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:48 pm


Could this is the reason? and/or

Your neighbor in New Zealand sounds like fun!

Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA

Postby ozzie » Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:41 pm

chappy this guy in new zealand pops up in the news now and again. his 5000$ cruise missle got more than a few enquiries. as far as aircraft go and ultralights, they have their rules but they don't have the politics that ours seem to be based on. there pretty smart they bought our navy skyhawks then leased them back to us they keep buying our small companies then sell the goods back to us and they wiped out ansett airlines over a short period of time. now they want to use our dollar as well. most kiwis reside in sydney and most aussies refer to new zealand as east australia. my favourite sporting team is whoever is playing against new zealand. truth is they do a lot more aviating than us. ozzie
User avatar
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:56 pm
Location: australia

Return to Lazair - General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests