AFS-13-476-E

Exemption No. 10784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

AERO SPORTS CONNECTION

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0815

for an exemption from § 103.1(e)(1)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 26, 2012, Mr. James G. Stephenson, 231 SW Bonanza Gln, Lake City, 

FL 32025-2148 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Aero Sports Connection (ASC) for an exemption from § 103.1(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption would allow ASC members to 

conduct flight activities under part 103, in single-seat gyroplanes that exceed 254 pounds 

empty weight for the purpose of creating the Ultralight Vehicle Safety Equipment research 

baseline.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 103.1(e)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that for the purposes of this part, an 

ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that, if powered, weighs less than 254 pounds empty 

weight, excluding floats and safety devices intended for deployment in a potentially 

catastrophic situation.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that it is a § 501(c)(4) nonprofit association, as granted by the Internal 

Revenue Service, that brings together aviation enthusiasts, operators, and ultralight vehicle 

owners who are dedicated to the continued safety and growth of aviation, the preservation of 

its history, and a commitment to aviation’s future. ASC’s programs, activities, and events are 

known throughout the world for supporting aviation safety and promoting personal enjoyment 

and responsibility within an aviation lifestyle. Furthermore, ASC has the goal of promoting 
2

aeronautical educational experiences by providing its members and the general public with 

access to the world of flight.

In 1982, when part 103 was adopted, the typical ultralight vehicle consisted of a basic aircraft 

and engine without brakes, self-starters, improved suspension systems, or special equipment 

for disabled persons. Ultralight vehicles were extremely weight efficient, sacrificing safety to 

reduce weight to make flight possible. Additionally, as the ultralight vehicle matured and 

developed, basic designs and methods resulted in additional weight items that have become 

standard. The petitioner points out that the FAA and the ultralight community acceptance of 

the ballistic parachute is a prime example of a critical safety-of-flight component.

According to the petitioner, the ultralight community believes the margin of ground safety 

could be raised to a higher standard. Changing the wording of § 103.1(e)(1) to allow the 

addition of simple and proven safety devices such as gyrocopter pre-rotator systems, starters,

and gyroplane horizontal stabilizer systems would raise the margin of ground safety. The 

addition of these systems could easily prevent serious hand propping and pre-rotating injuries

and accidents.

The petitioner states that a two-year exemption would be used to gather accident data on

“ultralight vehicles” covered by this exemption. If the exemption is granted, ASC and the 

FAA would use the data gathered to establish a baseline for possible rulemaking changes to 

14 CFR part 103 or related documents. The petitioner states the study would:

1. Require all owners of ultralight vehicles operating under the terms of this exemption 

to submit an annual safety report to the exemption holder. The annual safety report 

would consist of the following items:

a. Owner’s name;

b. Ultralight vehicle make and model, and registration number (if applicable);

c. Hours flown during the annual reporting period;

d. List of any accidents or incidents and their relation to the use of this additional

safety equipment; and

e. List of injuries that resulted from these accidents and/or incidents.

2. Consolidate annual safety reports by make and model of ultralight vehicle and forward 

them to the FAA, AFS-800 for their safety review; and

3. Develop a listing of horizontal stabilizers which meet ASTM F2353-11 stability 

requirements, thereby augmenting the knowledge base for both operators and 

manufacturers.

ASC states that granting this exemption would provide the possibility of future growth in all 

general aviation-related activities by promoting safety in this national recreational activity.

The petitioner believes the proposed research project serves the purpose of encouraging flight 

proficiency and safety, while promoting additional flight activity and the resultant positive 
3

economic impact that such increased activity has on all segments of sport and general 

aviation. This economic impact includes increased commerce for manufacturers of aircraft 

and parts, as well as service providers.

To ensure a high level of safety during the research project, ASC would:

1. Require reporting on all incidents and accidents at each yearly renewal. A failure to 

report will result in a failure to renew;

2. Require all ultralight operators, under the terms of the exemption, to be members of 

the exemption holding organization; and

3. All horizontal stabilizers installed under this exemption must either meet accepted 

design criteria or be tested for appropriate stability results as defined in an addendum 

specifying particular requirements on horizontal stabilizer designer test. Operators 

using the exemption for horizontal stabilizers must report to the exemption holders as 

set forth by the petitioner.

Under the exemption, each operator would present their copies of this exemption and the 

Technical Standards Committee Finding Sheet to the FAA for inspection upon request. In 

addition, the petitioner states that the FAA and ASC would reserve the right to terminate any 

program participant who fails to comply with the terms of this exemption. Failure to submit 

annual reports to the exemption holder would be cause for termination from the program. 

Upon termination, the individual would be required to comply with the part 103 ultralight 

vehicle weight limitations. After completion of this 2-year study, or after appropriate 

extensions, ASC would recommend to the FAA appropriate recommendations based on the 

study results.

The database created from the research project would be sufficient to develop a baseline of 

information for the FAA to make a reasonable decision on allowing future ultralight vehicle 

safety equipment. The petitioner expects an immediate reduction in personal injury and 

property damage.

The petitioner identifies pilots struck by a propeller as a result of having to hand-prop or 

standing on the seat to spin up the rotor blades by pushing them by hand and Pilot Induced 

Oscillations (PIO) accidents as being key safety concerns. The petitioner cites that these 

issues have been made worse by the instructor limitations imposed by the FAA Rotorcraft

Directorate, which do not allow gyroplane Special Light Sport Aircraft (SLSA). As a result,

the petitioner asserts that the Directorate has prevented possible instruction for most of the 

gyroplane community. Therefore, training on operating around a running engine/propeller or 

standing on the pilot seat while the engine is running to hand spin up the blades without prerotors is not available.
4

The petitioner states that the decision by the Directorate further impacts the community in that 

ultralight gyroplanes have nowhere to go to add these safety devices. Because there are no 

SLSA gyroplanes, there are no Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA) gyroplanes with a

fixed wing aircraft, an owner might obtain Experimental Amateur Built (E-AB) certificate, but

the gyroplane is unique in that once the rotor, the engine, the prop, the wheels, and the seat are 

bought, there is little else to consider. This makes it very difficult to build 51% of the aircraft,

even from the checklist in FAAOrder 8130.2 G. An owner knows how to be safer, but cannot 

do so legally.

The petitioner requested that the FAA not publish a copy of the petition in the 

Federal Register because of the time-critical nature of the request and the similarity to 

changes made for flotation devices under the training exemptions.

Although the petitioner requested that action on its petition not be delayed for publication in 

the Federal Register, the FAA found that the petition, if granted, would set a precedent. 

Therefore, to allow an opportunity for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of 

the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2012 (77 FR 64581). The 

FAA received four comments from four commenters, who generally favored the grant of 

exemption.

Three commenters are in favor of the structure of the proposed exemption, which would 

expand the current list of equipment excluded when measuring empty weight. They also 

contend that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest or at least would have no

adverse impact on the public interest. 

One commenter suggests that the single-most important factor in safety is proper training from

a certified flight instructor and that everything else is secondary in importance.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s supporting information as well as the 

information provided by commenters submitted to the docket supporting the petition filed by 

ASC, and has determined that the circumstances presented by the petitioner do not justify a 

grant of exemption. The FAA finds that the petitioner has not shown that a grant of 

exemption would be in the public interest or that a level of safety equivalent to that provided 

by the regulations would be maintained.

In 1982, the FAA promulgated the ultralight vehicle regulations and provided rules governing 

their operation. At that time, the FAA defined an ultralight vehicle as one that:

1. Is intended for single occupancy;

2. Is used for sport or recreation;

3. Does not have a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and 
5

4. If powered, weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety 

devices intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; has a fuel 

capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated 

air speed; and has a maximum power-off stall speed not exceeding 24 knots. 

Vehicles meeting the definition of an ultralight vehicle may be operated under part 103 and 

are not subject to the aircraft certification requirements of part 21, the maintenance 

requirements of part 43, the marking requirements of part 45, the registration requirements of 

part 47, the airmen certification requirements of part 61, the medical requirements of part 67, 

or the operating rules of part 91. However, any vehicle not meeting all of the elements in the 

ultralight vehicle definition may not be operated under part 103 and is subject to all of 

certification, operation, and maintenance regulations applicable to aircraft set forth in the 14 

CFR. The FAA notes that the ultralight regulations were intended to protect individuals not 

involved in the sport, including persons and property on the ground and other users of the 

airspace.

In response to changes in the state of the art of ultralights and the operation of fat ultralights, 

the FAA formed the Part 103 (Ultralight Vehicle) Working Group under the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) (58 FR 47172, September 7, 1993). The FAA 

tasked the working group with reviewing part 103 and developing recommendations 

concerning new or revised regulations. The FAA also tasked the working group with 

reviewing a petition (docket No. 25591) to amend part 103 and all comments submitted in 

response to that petition. The FAA notes that the ARAC considered a variety of alternatives,

but in its final recommendation to the FAA focused on three areas: sport pilot certification;

airman medical recommendations; and Flight Standards Review Board recommendations. 

Based on the ARAC’s recommendations, the FAA published Notice No. 02–03, Certification 

of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; (67 FR 5368, February 5, 

2002). The FAA noted that it based its proposal on the ARAC’s sport pilot recommendations 

but expanded it to provide a complete regulatory solution. On September 1, 2004, the new 

sport pilot and light sport aircraft regulations went into effect (69 FR 44772, July 27, 2004). 

In promulgating these new rules, the FAA stated that their purpose includes: (1) increasing 

safety in the light-sport aircraft community by closing gaps in existing regulations and 

accommodating new advances in technology; and (2) allowing the operation of light-sport 

aircraft that exceed the limits of ultralight vehicles operated under part 103. During this 

extensive rulemaking effort, the FAA noted that it worked closely with industry associations 

and manufacturers to determine how to best implement the new rules. The FAA points out 

that during this rulemaking, discussion took place over a single-place ultralight weight limit

increase to 360 pounds empty weight. At that time, the FAA stated the approach was not part 

of the ARAC’s recommendations, and therefore would not take action. 

The FAA notes that the rulemaking process provides the FAA an opportunity to obtain 

comments from a much larger segment of the industry, the public, and other government 

agencies, as well as from within the FAA, thereby presenting issues to a much broader 
6

audience. However, as discussed above, the FAA finds that it considered the request to 

increase the weight of ultralight vehicles under part 103 during the sport pilot rulemaking 

effort and rejected it in lieu of implementing the sport pilot regulations. In fact, the FAA 

points out that it initially formed the Part 103 (Ultralight Vehicles) Working Group, made up 

of members from the ultralight community, in response to a petition to increase the weight of 

ultralight vehicles. The working group provided the FAA a comprehensive recommendation 

that did not include expanding the definition of an ultralight vehicle to include heavier 

ultralight vehicles. The FAA also has determined that it considered the petitioners’ and 

commenters’ arguments regarding increased vehicle weight, safety, cost, resources, and flight 

in general aviation airspace during the sport pilot rulemaking. The FAA finds that the ARAC, 

the industry, and the FAA have thoroughly considered this proposal and rejected it.

The FAA disagrees with the petitioners’ claim that the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate, by not 

allowing gyroplane SLSA, has prevented possible instruction for most of the gyroplane 

community. A letter of deviation authority (LODA) for conducting flight training in experimental 

gyroplanes is widely used to conduct such instruction within the bounds of current regulations. 

The petitioner states that since there are no SLSA gyroplanes, there are no ELSA gyroplanes, and 

therefore the builder of a gyroplane might certify it as an experimental amateur built aircraft. The 

FAA agrees that gyroplanes cannot be certificated as ELSA under § 21.191(i)(2) or (3) or under 

§ 21.191(i)(1) after January 31, 2008. However, the FAA disagrees with the difficulty in 

meeting the requirements necessary for a builder to certificate a gyroplane as an experimental 

amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft. The FAA recognizes the safety benefit of allowing the 

manufacturer to complete some of the more complex work, and has also tailored the 

fabrication and assembly checklist for gyroplane kit major portion evaluation.

Regarding the petitioners’ request to conduct a safety study in accordance with paragraph 22 

of AC 103–7, the FAA points out that paragraph 22 does not address gathering data for a 

safety study; it addresses documenting whether a vehicle meets the part 103 definition of an 

ultralight vehicle. Although the petitioner requested formation of a technical standards 

committee in accordance with AC 103–7 to evaluate and approve vehicles as ultralights when 

they do not meet the part 103 definition of an ultralight, the FAA points out that the 

committee in AC 103–7 is to be used to determine if a vehicle meets the part 103 definition of 

an ultralight, not whether it can be flown as an ultralight under part 103 when it does not meet 

the definition of an ultralight. Therefore, the FAA finds that the petitioner has no basis for 

gathering data or forming a committee under AC 103–7.

Furthermore, the FAA points out that the rules for gyroplanes issued airworthiness certificates 

as ELSA under § 21.191(i)(1) permit their operation as light-sport aircraft as long as the 

aircraft are registered, meet minimum airworthiness standards, are in a condition for safe 

flight, and exhibit no hazardous operational characteristics or design features. These aircraft 

may, within the current regulatory structure, have larger control surfaces, increased structural 

weight, added safety features, and other items in accordance with § 21.191(i) as desired by the 

petitioner. The FAA points out that their classification and certification as light-sport aircraft 

would not affect the petitioner’s safety study or data gathered.
7

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find the grant of exemption would not be in the public 

interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701 

delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Aero Sports Connection for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 103.1(e)(1) is hereby denied.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service