Honoring Mike Sacrey – Sidebar

Editor’s Notes: The following article is reprinted from the April 1981 issue of Ultralight, the original title of the current Experimenter magazine. I recently came across this article while reviewing EAA’s early ultralight publications searching for other historical information and felt it gives us a great understanding of the “mood” surrounding the development of FAR Part 103 … and that, perhaps, it parallels today’s situation as we anticipate a sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rule. Charlie Schuck, EAA’s Washington representative, who recently retired, wrote the article. It’s also interesting to note that this article was written in April of 1981 … and the notice of proposed rulemaking that eventual became FAR Part 103 was not published until the summer of 1982. Hmmm! … Mary
Why a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for Ultralights
We all would agree that no federal regulations concerning ultralights would be a utopian situation. However, when we are sharing the airspace with other flying vehicles, there needs to be some coordinated effort, or chaos will soon take over. How is this best achieved in a society where aircraft operations are already clearly regulated by the FAA? It may be well to look at history for a moment, and let it guide us into the future.
The enormous potential of the hang glider movement was recognized by FAA in 1973, but nothing was done until the spring of 1974 when the FAA Washington Headquarters dispatched two emissaries from Flight Standards to California to meet with the most vocal representative of this group. Although the reception was “one with jaundiced eyes” there was a great deal of brain-picking and soul searching on both sides. It was soon agreed that if we could trust each other, to some degree, that both sides would reap benefits. The FAA was truly on a fishing expedition, and had no ulterior motives. They needed some real facts regarding the manufacture and operation of these devices. Further, they recognized it was virtually impossible to fit them into the certification system for aircraft and airmen, and an adequate enforcement program was likewise out of the question due to the large numbers and the portability of the vehicles involved.
Thus from a government standpoint it appeared wise to remain aware of the growth of the sport and to offer guidance for safety promotion rather than to develop regulations that may stifle initiation and innovation. At the same time the FAA would encourage the various associations representing the manufacture and operations of hang gliders to initiate selfregulating policies for those engaging in the sport. If these organizations were successful in developing a safe operation, and the sport did not endanger the lives of others, who were not directly involved, then the public would not be likely to petition the FAA for more protective action. This sounded logical to all concerned.
As a result of this exchange, the FAA agreed to state their position publicly through an Advisory Circular (AC). In May of 1974 AC 60-10 was published entitled “Recommended Safety Parameters for Operation of Hang Gliders.” It was this document that defined the vehicle and outlined the FAA’s willingness to work with manufacturers and other clubs in developing a strong safety conscious hang glider community, rather than to impose regulations on this sport.
At this time there was considerable skepticism within the FAA that this was the right path to follow, but in spite of this opposition, the FAA management supported the recommended position in AC 60-10 and were willing to give the sport an opportunity to prove itself.
Up to this time there had been some minor incidents or accidents involving persons outside the hang gliding community, but it was a safe operation as far as the general public was concerned. Those specific issues of conflict were soon corrected by local authorities and operations settled down.
Incidentally, the FAA had previously experienced a rather similar situation with the Amateur-built movement, which had been considered unworkable by the majority of FAA, but thanks to Bob Burbick of FAA and John Chamberlin of the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board), who both had a spirit of adventure and trust in their fellow man, this program, which was instituted about 25 years ago, prospered, and look at it today! It was at that early time that EAA took hold of the amateur-built movement. This group of enthusiasts, thanks to EAA and its guidance, is now a wellaccepted and highly respected segment of our great aviation family.
Back to the hang glider movement. During the last six years there have been many discussions, arguments, and mediations between FAA and the operators of hang gliders, but all in all, progress has been made in a very positive manner. The initial ‘give ‘em hell” types have mellowed down, the guiding associations have developed logical rules for sale operations, local flying groups have developed working plans and agreements with the FAA as to where and how they will operate, and in general, public complaint or indignation over participant accidents has almost disappeared. However, airspace problems are still the big potential threat to this otherwise safe activity. Most of the folks have adopted these safe practices, but there is the fringe element to be dealt with.
During this time the FAA modified its position by allowing power to be added to these vehicles. They also stated that operations are subject to the rules of FAR Part 91 subpart B, Rules of the Air. With the addition of powerplants, vehicle weights increased and the ability of foot launching and landing started to disappear. The initial concept of slow and light also began to disappear. This now became a major point of contention between the FAA and operators causing many strained situations. People also started to use their vehicle for commercial purposes, taking it out of the sport category.
Operators of these vehicles now approached that type of flight capable only by aircraft, yet these vehicles were not required to meet the same standards, now were the operators required to demonstrate their competency. So one can now see the head-on or collision course on which we are embarked. We are beginning to hear from operators of aircraft who are not sure that these unknown quantities should be in the same air space with them, as they fear a collision due to ignorance of the basic rules of the air.
To offset this, EAA is proposing a set of operational rules that will put a sense of compatibility in the operation of the hang glider, now also called ultralight, and the certificated aircraft. This is necessary to ensure the survival of ultralights, so let’s get on with the NPRM. Comments are going to be vital, however, to insure that a reasonable rule is enacted. The FAA is continuing a very liberal attitude, and we must weigh our desires very carefully to be reasonable, and thereby insure an eventual rule that will be livable to all users of the airspace. We can’t wait for a catastrophe to force the FAA to react to a public outcry, and be put in a position of neglect of its duties, as that is the time stringent measures prevail, and we will be hurt.