AFS-15-437-E

Exemption No. 11987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

UNITED STATES POWERED Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0194

PARAGLIDING ASSOCIATION 

for an exemption from § 103.1 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter submitted to the docket on January 28, 2015, Mr. Jeff Goin, President, United States 

Powered Paragliding Association (USPPA), 1923 Bragg Street, #140-2384, Sanford, North 

Carolina 27330, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of USPPA for 

an exemption from § 103.1 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would allow USPPA members to use wheels to support a footlaunched, powered paraglider tandem (i.e., two-place) training unit during launch and landing, 

and to use an auto-inflating device that would deploy upon submersion in water.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 103.1 defines the term “ultralight vehicle” as a vehicle that, among other things, “is used 

or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant.”

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that the safety of powered paragliding and consequently the safety of

aviation as a whole can be improved by increasing the education of this segment of the aviation 

community. Having better-educated pilots decreases the likelihood that these pilots will put 

themselves or others at risk. The petitioner further supports his request with the following 

observations related to paragliding tandem training:
2

• There have been two fatalities the petitioner is aware of, neither of which was part of the 

USPPA program. Both were drownings. One occurred in a wheeled craft and the other in a 

foot-launched craft. The type of launch was irrelevant to the fatal nature of the accidents. 

One was in an area that is not near water but the flight was taken to a river.

• Water imposes the greatest fatal accident risk to the sport as a whole for both tandem and 

single-place operations.

• Foot launching a tandem is physically difficult and, therefore, many instructors will not do 

it. Those that do are not likely to do so in very light winds (the best times to fly), or with 

large or impaired students.

• The petitioner knows of at least one reported injury to an instructor caused by a student 

who sat down early on a launch run. The instructor was out of commission for over six

months with major leg injuries.

• There are many reports of damaged equipment caused by students sitting down early or 

not running as necessary. 

• The overall safety of tandem powered paragliding, within the certified realm, is very good.

• Having more pilots get airtime before going on their first solo is obviously advantageous,

and increasing access to this capability, by virtue of allowing it to be on wheeled craft, 

would be a benefit.

• There are no existing light sport aircraft (LSA) that offer the same control paradigm as 

powered paragliders (hand throttle and hand brake toggles).

The petitioner believes making paragliding tandem training more readily available would improve 

the overall safety of the sport. To that end, the petitioner proposes that the FAA allow the use of 

wheels in support of foot-launched, powered paraglider tandem training units (tandem units) 

during launch and landing. The petitioner also proposes that the FAA allow the use of certain 

inflatable safety devices on paraglider aircraft. The petitioner presents his proposal as follows:

1. Foot-launched means that the powerplant is also used on existing production foot 

launched paramotor units.

2. “Approved Vehicle Floatation” is an auto-inflating device that works upon submersion in 

water and provides buoyancy of at least the weight of the tandem machine on which it is 

mounted and floats it upright. This would provide excessive floatation by the amount of 

water displacement.

3. Each tandem unit would be equipped with Approved Vehicle Floatation if there is any 

overwater flight.
3

4. Rules for all tandems, including foot launch, would require that no flight be flown over 

water, beyond gliding distance to shore, unless the craft has Approved Vehicle Floatation 

and both occupants are wearing U.S. Coast Guard approved type III personal floatation 

devices.

5. Each tandem unit would be required to offer a control method identical to that used by at 

least 50% of powered paraglider units used for certification programs, meaning hand 

throttle and hand controls to the wing.

6. Each instructor will meet all the requirements of a tandem instructor with a wheel launch 

(WL) add on.

7. Each tandem unit would be required to have a label issued by the USPPA, affixed in a 

location readily visible on the unit. The label would be required to specify the following:

• The unit meets the requirements of this exemption.

• The unit is not certified by the FAA for anything other than for instructional purposes 

when used with two people.

• The unit is not a registered aircraft.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2015 (80 FR 19109). 

We received no comments.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

As described above, § 103.1 defines an ultralight vehicle as one that is, among other things, “used 

or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant.” As a general matter, 

if an aircraft does not meet the criteria of an ultralight vehicle, then part 103 would not apply, and 

the aircraft and its operator would not benefit from § 103.7(a)-(c), which exempt ultralight 

vehicles and operators from the requirements to conform to airworthiness standards, obtain 

airman or medical certificates, or register the aircraft, respectively. 

Since at least 1983, the FAA has issued exemptions to § 103.1 to allow tandem operations under 

part 103, for training purposes only.

1

 These exemptions allow a tandem vehicle, which does not 

satisfy the § 103.1(a) single-occupant element of the ultralight definition, to be operated under 

part 103. Accordingly, USPPA currently holds exemption 9751C, which permits the operation of 

a foot-launched, tandem powered paraglider, for training purposes only. The FAA also issued 

exemption 9785C, to Aero Sports Connection, authorizing similar training in a foot-launched, 

tandem paraglider. Both exemptions expressly require vehicles to be “foot-launched.” In a letter 

to the FAA dated December 13, 2010, USPPA requested clarification of these exemptions. 

Among other things, USPPA asked (1) whether it was acceptable under either exemption to 

launch or land a foot-launched powered paraglider using wheels, and (2) whether it was

acceptable that the motor unit have skids or wheels intended to support its own weight during a 

launch or landing in which the instructor or student supported their own weight. 

 1 Exemption No. 3785, Docket No. 23492 (June 9, 1983).
4

In response to the 2010 letter, the FAA clarified that exemptions 9751C and 9785C are limited to 

training conducted using foot-launched powered or unpowered paragliders or hang gliders.2 The 

FAA stated in its response that it was not acceptable for a tandem, foot-launched powered 

paraglider (or hang glider) to use wheels for any launch or landing, whether operated solo or 

under one of the tandem exemptions. Furthermore, any support for a motor unit, including skids 

or wheels, is acceptable only when the aircraft is static; launches and landings must be conducted 

by foot. The FAA explained that the use of wheels was not acceptable under these exemptions 

because adding “wheels, skids, carts, etc., [would] create a powered parachute or a weight shift 

control (WSC) trike, both of which are subject to FAA certification as light sport aircraft.” The 

LSA certification process provides a greater level of safety than petitioner’s proposal to 

incorporate wheeled, tandem, powered aircraft into part 103. If the petitioner or USPPA believes 

current ultralight aircraft do not adequately support the control paradigm and that the use of LSA 

is necessary, either the petitioner or USPPA may seek approval through the aircraft certification 

process.

We also note that the petitioner presents the current request as a request for relief from the § 103.1

definition of an ultralight. This is understandable: as described above, the FAA has historically 

accepted and analyzed petitions to allow tandem part 103 operations as requests for exemption

from § 103.1. However, as the FAA recently noted in another denial of an exemption,

3 the FAA 

may not grant an exemption from our definitions, including from the definition of ultralights in

part 103. More specifically, the FAA may grant exemptions only from regulatory requirements, 

not definitions. This means that, in the future, exemptions to allow tandem part 103 operations 

will be analyzed as exemptions from the LSA regulations (and others, as necessary), with a 

condition/limitation requiring compliance with part 103. In other words, a tandem powered 

paraglider by definition cannot be an ultralight and cannot be exempted into being an ultralight, 

but the FAA may, by exemption with appropriate terms and conditions, continue to allow tandem 

operations under part 103.

Furthermore, with respect to the petitioner’s request to allow the use of wheels in a training flight 

on a two-person tandem aircraft, the FAA determines that the public as a whole would not benefit 

from the proposed relief. The petitioner’s proposal would effectively expand our past exemptions 

by removing certain aircraft designs from the LSA category and placing those aircraft in the lessregulated ultralight category. Although the petitioner cites a single incidence of personal injury 

and an unspecified amount of damaged equipment, the petitioner has not demonstrated how 

exempting certain LSAs from the LSA category would achieve an equivalent level of safety for 

the public as a whole, or how it would benefit the public as a whole. 

With respect to the petitioner’s second request, to permit the use of an auto-inflating device that 

will deploy upon submersion in water, part 103 does not prohibit carriage of such an autoinflating device, and neither do the terms of USPPA’s exemption no. 9751, as amended. 

Therefore, as long as the aircraft otherwise complies with 14 CFR, no relief from part 103 is 

required.

 2 Letter from the FAA to Mr. Jeff Goin, Docket No. FAA-2001-9032 (Dec. 13, 2010). 3 See Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, Docket 

No. FAA-2012-0123 (Oct. 17, 2014). 
5

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is not in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, I hereby deny the petition of Mr. Jeff Goin, on behalf of the 

United States Powered Paragliding Association, for an exemption from 14 CFR § 103.1.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 1, 2015.

//s//

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service