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 Avi ation 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 foot

launched

, 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 veh icle” 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 parag liding 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 occurr ed 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. T hose that do are not likely to do so in very light winds (the best times to fly)

, o r 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 m any 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 s olo 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 (han d throttle and hand brake toggles)

.

The petitioner believe s making paragliding tandem training more readily available would improve the overall safety of the sport. To that end, the petitioner propose s that the FAA allow the use of wheels in support of f oot

- 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 fo llows :

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 o f the tandem machine on which it is

mounted and float s it upright. This would provide excessive floatation by the amount of water displacement.

3. Each tandem unit would be equipped with Approved V ehicle F loatation if there is any overwater flight.3

4. R ules f or 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 floatatio n 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 Federa l Register on April 9, 2015 (80 FR 19109).

We received n o 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 ai r 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 T hese 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 pe rmits 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 r equire vehicles to be “foot

- launched.” In a letter

to the FAA dated December 13, 2010, USPPA requested clarification of these exemption s. Among other things, USPPA asked (1) whether it was acceptable under either exemption to
launch or land a foot

- launch ed powered paraglider using wheels , and (2) whether it was acceptable that the motor unit ha ve skids or wheels intended to support its own weight during a launch or landing in which the instructor or student support ed their own weight.

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

.4

In response to th e 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 on ly when the aircraft is static; l aunches and landings must be conducted by foot. The FAA explained that t he use of wheels was not acceptable under these exemptions

because a ddi ng “ 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. ” T he

LSA certification process provide s a greater level of safety than petitioner’s proposal to incorporate wheeled, tandem

, powered aircraft into part 103

. If the petitioner or USPPA beli eves 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 t h e 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

fro m § 103.1. However, a s the FAA r ecently noted in another denial of an exemption

, 3 the FAA

may no t 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 unde r 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, t he FAA determines that the public as a whole would not benefit from the proposed relief. The petitioner’s p roposal would effectively expand our past exemptions by remov ing certain aircraft designs from the LSA category and placing those aircraft in the less

regulated ultralight category. Although the petitioner cites a single incidence of personal injury

and an unspecified amount of damaged equipment, t he 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 resp ect 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 auto

inflating device , and neither do the terms of USPPA’s e xemption n o. 9751, a s 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 t o 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

.

Iss ued in Washington, D

. C

. , on July 1, 2015

.

//s//

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service