Note to readers — This article first appeared in EAA Sport Pilot magazine. The layout is unusual because of magazine formatting, but all the text and photo information is as it originally appears… —DJ AND LEARNING THE HISTORY OF FAR PART 103 Not long after takeoff, the airline captain's deep voice transmitted the following: "Ah... Los Angeles Center, I see hang gliders not far off my wing. They aren't in our airspace, but I'm surprised to see these guys up here." Thus began the impetus to create Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 103. Of course, the rule had no name at the outset, but one FAA official saw the future. Honoring the foresight of this man, EAA recently inducted W. Michael "Mike" Sacrey into the EAA Ultralight Hall of Fame during ceremonies on November 2, 2001, at EAA headquarters in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Mike holds an airline transport pilot (ATP) rating with numerous sign-offs for a variety of jets and multiengine seaplanes. He's also flown at least a dozen different ultralights. A certificated flight instructor for both airplanes (CFI) and instruments (CFII), Mike has logged more than 8,000 hours of flight time. During his nearly 30-year career with FAA, he held a number of positions in various Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs), including assignments to FAA's Washington, D.C., headquarters staff. He retired from FAA in June 2000, after having served as director of FAA's Southern Region Flight Standards District Office for more than six years. While Mike's work in mainstream aviation affected thousands of pilots plus millions of airline customers, none have been touched more saliently than the ultralight community. Tens of thousands of fly-for-fun pilots owe this man a debt of gratitude, even if they don't know his name (though, obviously, articles like this one will somewhat change that situation). Though modern-day ultralight pilots may not often consider the significance of Mike's work two decades ago, he created the structure in which ultralights were allowed to flourish. Careful to give credit to others, Mike would demure to the designers, instructors, organizers, association leaders, and flying club officials who compose the backbone of ultralight aviation as it is today. Yet it takes a visionary person to put new developments in their proper position; when it comes to ultralight aviation, Mike Sacrey is the person many believe deserves this distinction. As he looked ahead, his eyesight was better than 20/20. Part 103 will celebrate its 20th anniversary not long after EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2002 is history. Today it is widely accepted as a triumph of rule making|a rule about which pilots can actually become enthusiastic.

Creating Ultralight Vehicles

For the term "ultralight vehicle" Mike gives credit to FAA's Juan Croft, who developed the original foot-launch policy for powered hang gliders. Mike explains: "In the late 1970s, Juan reviewed powered hang glider operations, and he argued that they would not be a hazard to air commerce. Based on his recommendation, the agency chose to classify powered hang gliders as vehicles rather than aircraft and to regulate them differently because they were and are recreational vehicles rather than air commerce vehicles." But, in the early 1980s, FAA's attention was again drawn to ultralights after enthusiasts started putting better developed engines on the machines, which allowed them to fly higher and farther. Mike recalls that FAA's Air Traffic Division was given the assignment to create a sub-chapter to FAR Part 91 that would regulate the activities of these vehicles. "That was the original plan," says Mike, "to figure out how to prohibit powered hang gliders/ultralights from using the most pieces of airspace that also were used by air commerce. FAA didn't want to kill ultralights, but nobody in air commerce was too anxious to see them proliferate. We were trying to find a way to adequately fulfill FAA's responsibilities to control air traffic and assure the safety of the public. "The actual assignment to write the rule came to Bernie Geier and Keith Potts as division managers. Besides myself, others on the team included Jack Reynolds from Airports, Ken Peppard from Air Traffic, and Art Jones of the Certification branch. Art was involved because at one time the thought of requiring some level of pilot certification had been considered. Even though Art was manager of the Certification branch, he was not someone who was particularly into empire building. He had a good feel for what was and wasn't needed, and in the end he felt that pilot certification would not be a significant benefit and could become a burden on the agency if FAA had to oversee certification." According to Mike, one of the biggest discussions that evolved from FAA's initial meetings was coming up with a definition of ultralights. "We could see that the foot-launching rule wasn't working any more as a defining line because more and more people were putting landing gear on the machines, and we could see that was safer, so we began looking for other defining criteria. At that time, we had no idea how sophisticated these machines were going to become."

The Magical 254-Pound Weight Limit

One of the most-asked questions by ultralight newcomers and veterans alike is, "How did FAA choose 254 pounds for the maximum empty weight of ultralight vehicles?" Mike finally tells the story: "The weights were a compromise. First we started talking about how much weight pilots could actually foot-launch. The original proposal was for 155 pounds, but people told us they were routinely launching 200-pound ultralights. We didn't necessarily believe that was the case, but that's what manufacturers and enthusiasts represented to us. After many discussions with those active in the industry, the weight of 254 pounds came down because we thought manufacturers and owners could build a safe machine at that weight, and then we added the weight exemption for a 'safety device to be deployed in a potentially catastrophic situation.'" Mike says that exemption came about as the rule-making team began to consider the repercussions of inair/ structural failures. "We heard a lot of talk about parachutes that could lower the whole machine to the ground in the event of a structural failure, and that seemed worth investigating." Then, as now, some enthusiasts marvel that safety devices didn't include all manner of other safety gear. Mike responds: "In fact, we were thinking specifically of parachutes, although we didn't want to say only parachutes because we didn't want to limit ingenuity. But we decided that safety devices to be deployed in a catastrophic situation did not mean brakes or a radio, as some have challenged since the rule's institution. Frankly, we argued about many of them, including radios, brakes, and a transponder, or even a horn because it would let people on the ground know to get out of the way. People tried to say brakes were needed, but that's not true in a catastrophic situation. "The idea of the whole-airplane parachute was relatively new. Many pilots were wearing parachutes with hang gliders-and there had already been successful deployments. A couple of companies were working on systems for powered ultralights, and we thought, 'Why not give them an extra allowance?' We were limiting the weight of the airframe, thus to some extent interfering with the design, so we thought emergency parachutes would just be a good redundancy. "At that time there was a lot of talk in regulatory circles that if you're going to make some piece of equipment optional, there should be some extra privilege if pilots/owners added it. For example, in other aircraft, if you added a transponder, you were allowed to fly through additional airspace. "We decided that if owners added the extra weight of the parachute, we'd give them the extra weight allowance so that they wouldn't pay a penalty in weight for equipping their vehicle with this safety device." With several "saves" recorded because of the availability of ballistic chutes, history shows the rule-making team's logic was sound. But how did extra weight for floats figure into the special exemption? Mike explains that, too. "Regarding floats, we could see that if people were operating off water they weren't operating anyplace where they were going to be involved with other air traffic. In the examples I saw, people were operating at low altitudes in small bodies of water, and they just were not a threat to other air traffic." Could ultralight manufacturers have convinced Mike and the team that more airframe weight was reasonable? Remembering that "foot-launch" had been the prior rule, Mike says perhaps, but not likely. "The weight was definitely a negotiation. The industry was trying to convince us that these were the same machines they had been foot-launching, but it's hard to convince someone you can footlaunch a 300-pound vehicle."

Speed Limits in the Sky

How about that 55-knot or 63-mph speed limit? Wasn't that rather restrictive? (In the context of the proposed sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rule that carries a top speed limit of 132 mph, this question seems relevant.) Mike responds with typical logic: "First of all we looked at the speeds at which most of the machines were operating, and 55 knots was about average. Second, we looked at the damage that could be caused-the faster the projectile or the aircraft was going, the more kinetic energy you have. "We looked at the type of technology that was being used, the wing designs, and we decided that a 55-knot speed would be adequate for sport and recreation. These aircraft were never going to be transportation machines per se, so it was a compromise, as are most things in regulatory language. We knew that if we kept a limit on the top speed and if we could get the stall speed down pretty low, the chances were we would not have much third-party injury or damage. And I don't think we have had much third-party injury or damage." Many who know him think Mike is some kind of ideal FAA regulator. How might he act today if he had remained in his old role? He muses: "I, for one, would be for a new definition of ultralights with a new, higher empty weight, and I wouldn't object to some speed increase on the top end, but I would object to any speed increase on the bottom end, though that would be a very difficult thing for a designer. The low kinetic energy has been responsible for fewer injuries and fewer third-party damage incidents; consequently, we haven't had a significant part of the public saying that ultralights are a problem."

Why No Certificate?

Because most ultralights fly only locally, many certificated pilots will somewhat grudgingly admit a certificate may not be necessary. However, we all know some ultralights fly long distances. Mike explains: "We decided that ultralight flying was a sport similar to mountain climbing and skiing, and we didn't have any intention of coming up with standards for the machines. We had a good model for that in the sport parachuting rule, which is the model that I settled on and became the major advocate for- not licensing the aircraft, not licensing the airmen, just limiting the potential for disaster by (1) keeping them out of certain air space, and (2) limiting the size of the aircraft and the amount of fuel they could carry. "Of course we know that ultralights have gone all around the United States, but I submit that every time, they were being operated by somebody having adequate knowledge to do it safely. In some cases they were already certificated pilots at another level, but even if not, the truth is they were able to do it safely without endangering anyone else, and that's all that mattered. That's all licensing is about-it's just a method to assure the public that a reasonable minimum of knowledge has been gained. Licensing or certification is not some magic panacea." Although Mike encountered some resistance within FAA for his "letthem- fly-freely" philosophy, he continued to use logic to further his goals. "We knew we could not have an inspector at every airport or place where hang gliders or ultralights could be operated. That was foolish thinking. It was better to depend on industry, the community, and the marketplace to determine what's successful." In the end it may have been the political climate that allowed Mike to work his rule-making magic. "The timing was good. Our government was into self-regulation. Politically, the administrations didn't want new governmental functions; this was during the Carter and Reagan administrations. Carter was talking about smaller government, the Paperwork Reduction Act was in force, and simplification of regulations was our marching order, so it all flowed fairly smoothly. Nobody wanted to get the federal government into new areas, particularly in regulatory matters. Whenever you came up with a regulatory scheme you had to show how you were saving taxpayer's money, not spending it. So this rule worked well in that climate." Nearly 20 years later, it is obvious to aviators in and out of the ultralight industry that Part 103 has functioned admirably. However, even such a marvelously simple rule required more detail. Advisory Circulars 103-6 and the very important 103-7, which helped FAA field inspectors as well as ultralight designers determine if a given ultralight met the rule, provided that detail. This still was not the limit of Mike's work. Important innovations that came once Part 103 was written into law included the exemptions for two-place training in powered ultralights and for the towing of hang gliders. Mike states: "I did the two-place exemption and the towing exemption, and both of them were difficult to convince FAA General Counsel to accept. FAA's top lawyers are very leery about exemptions. They feel you should go back to rule making rather than exemptions, but we talked about how we needed expediency and the fact that we could increase the safety of ultralights. "While many cite ABC's 20/20 program in November of 1983 as having been extremely harmful to the sport of ultralighting, it actually helped us get the two-place exemption through because we were able to convince people that just by having some experience in the twoplace machine with an experienced pilot we could essentially replicate the kind of safety that was involved in conventional training aircraft. They went for that, and we got the exemption." In his Hall of Fame nomination document for Mike, Carmen Miranda of EAA Ultralight Chapter 71 wrote, "It should be remembered that the extraordinary success enjoyed by the ultralight community today in the United States is in no small measure due to the personal efforts and vision of this one FAA official."

Offering My Congratulations

In closing, I'd like to add my personal thoughts. I've come to know Mike, not as an FAA man but as a person and fellow pilot. Since we first met I've enjoyed his calm demeanor and winning smile (not always attributes I associate with my representatives in FAA). We've had numerous conversations, and you know what — he's "one of us." In his acceptance speech, Mike recognized the irony of EAA inducting a "rule maker" into the ranks of sport aviation's finest. Yet anyone who's ever met and talked to Mike finds this of no surprise whatsoever. While some rule makers load regulation upon rule to the shoulders of pilots, Mike and his associates in the early '80s helped create the least imposing rule in the thick book of FAA regulations. As I've often, and proudly, repeated, this is an FAA rule that can be printed in its entirely on the front and back of one 8.5-by-11-inch piece of paper. Lastly, Mike's work has had a profound influence on my life and that of thousands more owing to his dedication to ballistically deployed emergency parachutes. By seeing the future (BRS was very young at the time and had yet to save its first life), Mike not only helped provide me with a career, but he also allowed these devices to save literally hundreds of lives. Please join me in giving Mike a round of applause for his work on aviation's tiniest rule, the famous Part 103. Not only did he accomplish a noteworthy rule creation; he did so in barely one year once the NPRM was published. Perhaps Mike puts it best when he summarizes: "The rule started out to be a prohibitive rule-prohibit the operation here, prohibit the operation there. What we were able to do was make it into a permissive rule that allowed the operation of ultralights and put significant responsibility on the operators and on the industry. That was the whole model. If I became famous for any part of 103, it was because I advocated letting the pilots regulate themselves. Regulation shouldn't limit invention." Amen — and congratulations to Mike Sacrey, an FAA rule maker pilots can applaud! EAA has bestowed a well deserved honor.

The FAA's new sport pilot/light-sport aircraft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) has been released. With a 90- day comment period underway, the proposed pilot certificate and aircraft categories are on the minds of all light-aircraft producers and anyone who flies for fun. The flying machines that will fit under the proposed new aircraft categories will be called light-sport aircraft, and in this article we'll take a look at what's currently available|and what the future may hold. "The FAA's new rule is destined to globalize the light aviation industry." The promise is great for Americans. When the new sport pilot/light-sport aircraft NPRM changes are finalized and implemented, we will enter a new era in light aviation. People who have wanted a light aircraft to fly for fun but who didn't have the time or skill to build it will be able to buy a ready-to-fly airplane. And, they'll be able to learn to fly in less time and at less expense than the cost of acquiring a private pilot certificate. Fixed-base operators will be able to rent affordable light-sport aircraft for training and for fun flying. Instructors of light-sport aircraft will be recognized for the professionals they are. During a proposed three-year transition period, thousands of twoseat ultralights may become lightsport aircraft, if the owner so chooses. After making that transition, those pilots will be able to bring a friend, their spouse, or a child aloft with them legally. They'll have the choice of using either a valid U.S. driver's license or an airman medical as their medical certificate. Cruising speeds for these fun aircraft will leap to 132 mph, and amphibious aircraft with repositionable gear will be acceptable in this category. With training, owners will continue to be able to do their own maintenance, and insurance and financing should become easier to obtain. And, with certificated pilots operating certificated aircraft, an increased number of America's 12,000-plus airports will be more likely to welcome light-sport aircraft. It sounds great, doesn't it? So what will you be able to buy as a light-sport aircraft enthusiast? Which aircraft will qualify under this proposed rule? No one knows for certain which manufacturers will decide to produce the ready-to-fly aircraft that will become available under this proposed rule, but an expert can make some informed guesses. Having flown a great many of this genre's aircraft, I will attempt to identify a group of likely players in this article. Any review such as this will have errors and omissions. I don't plan to discuss those aircraft certificated with a standard airworthiness certificate that may be flown with a sport pilot certificate-such as some of the Piper J-3 Cubs and Aeronca Champs. Nor have I included any gyroplanes, airships, or balloons-which are included under the proposed rules- as I have limited experience with those flying machines. In addition, I have not listed the many plans-built aircraft that will qualify as sport-pilot eligible as my familiarity with that group of aircraft is limited as well. Though the new special lightsport aircraft category may require only modest additional work for some producers to manufacture flyaway aircraft, other companies may find the process too burdensome or too costly. No doubt some manufacturers will elect to continue producing true Part 103- legal ultralights while others will maintain their amateur-built kits and plans sales. Most industry experts predict some consolidation among light aircraft builders. It will be an exciting and interesting time as the industry and community develops and matures. Let's Enjoy the Sky Together! As I sifted through my reference materials, many websites, and the buyer's guides produced by several U.S. and international publishers, I selected 67 candidate manufacturers that I think pilots may see participating in the future of lightsport aircraft. Again, it is probably certain that I will be wrong about some of them, and I may have missed some worthy producers. This is a preliminary review, not the final effort to determine which machines will earn approval. As time marches onward, some products will fall by the side, and new designs will be added. Any compilation of lightsport aircraft is bound to be a work in process for several years to come. I tried to be inclusive, but any company or designer who feels left out is encouraged to contact EAA or me. (E-mail Experimenter at experimenter@eaa.org or the author at Dan@ByDanJohnson.com. Updates should be sent by manufacturers only, please; we cannot answer emails or calls from thousands of readers.) Who Will Play the New FAA Game? On EAA's sport pilot website, www.sportpilot.org, 271 sport-pilot eligible models are listed in one compilation. Yet I show only 67 names. What is the difference? EAA's list counts all the different models, including the plans-built aircraft I mentioned above, whereas I listed only manufacturers. I chose that method because models change more often than manufacturers, and new designs may emerge specifically to meet the light-sport aircraft definition. I also used a more complex selection criteria. Other lists count all aircraft that appear to fit the weight and speed definitions of light-sport aircraft. I did similarly, but I also considered the chance that a particular manufacturer would complete all the steps necessary to qualify its aircraft as a light-sport aircraft. Remember, manufacturers and builders still have the experimental amateur-built (51-percent) category in which to operate, and Part 103 ultralight rules remain delightfully free of regulation. Aircraft that legally fit either group today will fit those groups in the future, as the FAA is leaving those popular programs in place. While the proposed consensus standard compliance that will apply to the design and manufacture of light-sport aircraft is much less restrictive from a regulation standpoint-compared to Part 23 certification rules-participating will still demand a good deal of effort, money, and time. Not everyone will want to do the work. (See "Consensus Standards-Why, What and How" on page 25 of this issue.) Many manufacturers, however, will see the potential of light-sport aircraft. When selecting my 67 aircraft producers, I made a series of judgment calls. I'm guessing that the names included in my chart will be the most likely builders to rise to the challenge so they can reap the rewards. However, I don't think that light-sport aircraft will be limited only to faster, larger, more costly airplanes. Broad Group of Aircraft Because a light-sport aircraft (LSA) can weigh 1,232 pounds at gross doesn't mean that every aircraft offered will weigh that much. For example, many foreign-built trikes may be among the earliest approved aircraft in the new class. British trikes have already been operating under a comprehensive certification system. If the United Kingdom's BCAR-S rule is accepted as part of the design consensus standard-as it might well be from what we know now-then a Pegasus trike could win approval as a LSA in a short time. Standards in Germany, Australia, and Canada may also find quick reciprocal approval. Trikes are not particularly fast, and powered parachutes are even slower. So the proposed rule's top speed of 132 mph is not by itself a certain definition of all light-sport aircraft. Some probably won't even have the two seats allowed, I predict. The proposed sport pilot rule changes also may affect the way designers view Part 103 ultralights. While many engineers feel a 254- pound empty weight limit restricts what they can do, human ingenuity can never be ruled out. Some smaller builders will continue to produce these simpler machines with their basic rules and no need for certification (or pilot certificate) of any kind. In fact, new designs may appear. Because Part 103 is being left intact, some aircraft will not have to qualify under sport pilot. Hang gliders, powered paragliders, light trikes, and light powered parachutes can still operate under the milder Part 103 rule, which also allows builders to sell ready-to-fly aircraft. While some industry experts predict the demise of Part 103 aircraft, they may be wrong. In fact, some manufacturers have already told me they intend to make at least one model that will continue to qualify under Part 103. America leads the world in kit aircraft production with hundreds of models offered. Some buyers will likely opt for the light-sport aircraft category and its benefits, but others will be content to work within the experimental amateur-built regulations. Sport pilots will be able to fly both. What a country! Aircraft in this report come from the ultralight, microlight, and light homebuilt communities, including many that Europe, Australia, and Canada call ultralights. Have It Your Way Those manufacturers who choose to fill the expected demand for lightsport aircraft can offer flying machines in several ways. They can continue to make kits as they have in the past, or they can create new ones. These new LSA kits will not have to follow the 51-percent rule and can be 10- or 90-percent completed by the factory, depending on what the market demands. However, only ready-to-fly special light-sport aircraft models will be able to be used for compensated activities like instruction or rental. Fully built, ready-to-fly aircraft will be certificated as special light-sport aircraft, while kit models will be experimental light-sport aircraft. A sport pilot certificate will suffice for either variation, and those with"higher" certificates like private, commercial, or ATP can fly any lightsport aircraft in the category in which they are rated without further requirements. Not all current kits that exist in the lightplane world will qualify as light-sport aircraft. For example, it makes little sense to deliberately slow designs that cruise faster than 132 mph, and twin-engine aircraft, like the Air Cam and the A-26 Vulcan, do not qualify as light-sport aircraft. Helicopters are not included in the sport pilot proposal either. American products have long led the parade of kit-built airplanes. U.S. kit suppliers already have proven instruction methods and parts packaging. Many imported brands- now sold in many countries as readyto- fly aircraft-may not yet have detailed building plans/instructions (in good English) and subassemblies for American homebuilders to use in creating finished airplanes. Europe enjoys a large lead in ready-to-fly lightplanes. Aircraft produced in eastern European countries can be built at lower labor costs, so the FAA's new rule is destined to globalize the light aviation industry. My guess is that European airframe makers will drive the ready-to-fly market early on, given their longer experience in this demanding task. U.S. suppliers won't be left out, but they may be left behind for a short time. Gearing up to build flyaway aircraft with well-paid American workers will require efficiencies that nearly all U.S. builders must still develop. Bringing computer-driven tooling to the task takes time and money. Even then, the costs may be too high to compete successfully with aircraft assembled in the Ukraine, Poland, the Czech Republic, or Russia where workers are happy to have jobs that pay $100 to $200 per month. Once again, Yankee ingenuity will have to find other ways to compete for the fully built market. Kits can hold down the purchase cost for builders, and another idea can also emerge. Manufacturers of already-certificated light-sport aircraft may also train selected dealers to assemble aircraft. As a side point to such an effort, these dealers might then become approved repair stations. Owners will be able to maintain aircraft given various levels of training, but many pilots will prefer to have an experienced professional build and maintain their light-sport aircraft. Speed Matters Sport pilots will pick from two speed limits: 87 knots (100 mph) or 115 knots (132 mph). Students will fit naturally into the former, while the speedier choice comes after an instructor endorsement in your logbook. The same certificate still applies; the logbook endorsement is the record. Regardless of top speed, all models must meet a 39- knot (45-mph) minimum stall with flaps or lift devices deployed, or 44 knots (51 mph) clean. In this aspect of light-sport aircraft-special or experimental- American builders have a lead. They are accustomed to building slower flying machines and may be able to optimize the genre faster. Many European-designed aircraft trying to fill the need for affordable, economical transportation have pushed for higher speeds (for example, Germany's Fascination and Italy's P-92RG). While it's true you might slow these machines with smaller engines and specially pitched props, they weren't designed with lower speed limits in mind. Because only fixed-pitch or ground-adjustable props are allowed, designers must correctly fit the engine and prop to their design. So some aircraft will have powerful engines, climb props, and large wings to bring breathtaking climb performance without breaking the speed limit. Others will use fuel-efficient engines, cruise props, and small wings to reach maximum speeds while meagerly sipping fuel. Not all light-sport aircraft will maximize the 132-mph limit. The joy of simpler machines that cruise at 60, 80, or 100 mph may also prove more affordable than powerful, deluxe models. As the cars folks have been saying for years: "Speed costs money. How much are you willing to pay to go fast?" Among all possible participants in the light-sport aircraft category, we have several groups: U.S.- developed ultralights intended for slower flying, lighter homebuilt models that aren't aimed at high speed transport, and speedy composite designs (often European) modified for flight under this new rule. As the FAA wisely prefers it, the marketplace will dictate what is built and sold. In the case of lightsport aircraft in the 21st century, the winners could come from anywhere. Seaplanes are popular today, and the proposed sport pilot rule will only enhance this. The proposal allows aircraft to have repositionable landing gear so that these aircraft can become amphibious. The FAA did not include retractable gear on landbased aircraft (though this remains possible in Part 103 machines), yet they saw the need to allow seaplanes to work on land or water. Angels in the Details Differences among light-sport aircraft will not be dictated by performance alone. Though we can only guess where this rule may lead engineers, I can speculate on some of the configuration details that might evolve. Instrument panels and the equipment mounted to them will vary widely. Sport pilots may not fly at night or in IFR conditions, so panels will probably not have many attitude gauges. Because sport pilots can fly cross-country, navigation instruments and radios may be quite common. Emergency parachutes have proven quite popular, with more than 50 percent of United States ultralights so fitted. All German ultralights must have a ballistic parachute, and these uses will translate well into light-sport aircraft where fliers may like that added safety insurance. Another area of keen interest involves maintenance. Today's ultralight/sport pilots sometimes do their own maintenance, while others hire rofessionals to do the work. Under the sport pilot proposal, owners of experimental light-sport kit aircraft will be able to do their own maintenance on their privately owned aircraft after receiving some training (a 16-hour course). But special light-sport aircraft must be maintained by someone holding a repairman's maintenance rating (received after attending an 80-hour course specific to a category of aircraft). Accordingly, commercial repair stations will surely step up to perform the work for hire when the FAA proposed rule legitimizes work on these machines. Fortunately, the FAA recognizes that many years of flying and teaching in ultralights has value. So, current U.S. ultralight pilots and instructors who are registered with a recognized ultralight program (EAA, ASC, or USUA) will be given an "upgrade path," to borrow a phrase from the computer world. Ultralights pilots who are not currently registered with one of those programs but who do register within 24 months of the implementation of the final rule will also be able to take their knowledge and experience with them into the sport pilot world. Then, hours logged as a sport pilot can be logged toward higher FAA certificates. As time goes on, associations and publications will disseminate more information on the proposed rule and how it will affect recreational flying in the United States. The FAA expects passage of the rule in about a year. Once codified into law, the rule has twoand three-year phase-in periods to transition pilots and existing aircraft into the new framework. In the meantime, it should be an interesting ride with new or modified flying machines emerging regularly. Twenty Years Later It is somewhat fitting that precisely two decades have passed since the FAA enacted Part 103. Since then, an entire industry has developed. Over that time designs have changed and evolved. Ultralights under Part 103 are now better machines than ever before. Other aircraft have gone far beyond what rule makers envisioned in 1982. And that is exactly why sport pilot should be a success; it fills a gap. In writing this rule, FAA leaves many of the details up to the industry to develop and to the market to define. Ready or not, here comes the sport pilot certificate and light-sport aircraft. Let the games begin! 24 APRIL 2002 More at www.sportpilot.org

Trikes: they're enjoyed around the world by thousands of pilots A what? Not sure what a "trike" is, are you? Don't feel bad. Although these machines may represent the largest production of aircraft in the world, many pilots have overlooked their appeal. A trike is an aircraft made of two principle parts: a wing that resembles a hang glider (but is more stoutly built) and a carriage. The latter element is comprised of an engine, landing gear, seat and instrumentation. Within certain bounds, the wings and carriage can be mixed and matched. They may sound strange, but they are enjoyed around the world by thousands of pilots. In fact, among European light aviation enthusiasts, about one in every two flies a trike. Just a toy? Not! In case you think that such a contraption must be only for young sport enthusiasts that don't have enough money for a "real" airplane, think again. One of the leading manufacturers of trikes in the world is a British concern that makes the Quantum 912. They've built over 1,500 aircraft in their 15-year existence and their aircraft can do some amazing things. By way of example, one such machine, called the Global Flyer (sponsored by GT Global, a Swiss Finance Company) recently completed an around-the-world flight. And this impressive achievement wasn't a crazy stunt. In a highly planned and publicized effort, well-known British broadcaster and pilot Brian Milton made the global circuit in 120 days. He arrived back home less than two weeks ago. Should such an endeavor still fail to impress you, consider that his last long leg was 8.5 hours from Iceland to Scotland, all over water. Could it be for you? After years of persistent effort, trike manufacturers are starting to make good inroads to the American flying market (many producers are European, although several companies also build these aircraft in the United States as well). You may think that most buyers are ultralight pilots and you're right, but an increasing number of aviators are considering trikes because of their versatility, compactness, and sheer joy of flight. Company Director Bill Sherlock, here supporting his American distributor, personally knows four British Air captains that own their trikes. One reason for both the successful round-the-world adventure and for interest from GA pilots is the powerplant. Pegasus was one of the very first trike makers to successfully incorporate the increasingly popular Rotax 912 four-stroke engine. Another reason for widespread interest is certification. Indeed, the entire line of Pegasus trikes has full Section S certification from Britain's CAA. Much more than a simple industry program, the Quantum trikes have passed virtually all of the same detailed government examination as required to certify a new four-seater in the USA. Given this intensive certification program, a fully built retail price of $33,000 for the Quantum 912 seems pretty reasonable. The Quantum 912 with its highly developed Q2 wing, is the high-end aircraft from Pegasus. On the other end, their two-stroke-powered 503 basic model - which features the same wing - is only about $17,000. Anyone attending AirVenture '98 surely knows that a brand-new, fully certified aircraft for less then $20,000 represents a bargain. Pegasus boasts an engineering team of four led by Dr. William Brooks. It probably doesn't surprise you to know Brooks flies and enjoys both ultralights and hang gliders. But you may be intrigued to know that this doctor of aviation design works only four days a week for Pegasus; on the fifth day he designs the new generation wing spar for AirBus at British Aerospace (his specialty is composites). Want to know more? If you'll just venture to the far south end of AirVenture '98, you can have a close look at the Quantum 912 and speak with Bill Sherlock, an engaging Englishman. He'll be assisted by Rob Rollison of Rollison Aircraft who represents the Pegasus line in America.

Updated: 7 December 2001 If you like hang gliding... then you have come to the right page. Currently, the Website has several Dennis Pagen pilot reports of the most popular hang gliders. (Thanks to Dennis for working me to bring you his fine reports.) I also have posted the last few Product Lines columns from Hang Gliding magazine. This column has run every month for the last 22 years and therefore represents a significant historical record for the sport of hang gliding. I will add the newest versions each month and will go back and add the older ones on a steady basis. Powered Hang Gliding & Soaring Those hang glider pilots willing to add engines to the equation will find some pilot reports on light trikes. These are machines I have flown that can deliver soaring flight to hang gliding enthusiasts. Some are better than others. well, that may be why you visited this site -- to see the differences. Other solutions ByDanJohnson.com is much more than hundreds of pilot reports and thousands of photos. I have tried to create a help system for buyers that should be useful to both beginners and experienced pilots. Please look around the site and check out the special features of ByDanJohnson.com PlaneFinder© PlaneView© SpecCheck© Pros & Cons ©UF! magazine Owner Feedback Manufacturer Comment Ask Dan (chat-room Q&A sessions) ...and more to come