BFI: More Valuable Than Ever

Q: It doesn't look like I will be able to get my Sort Pilot checkride before January 31, 2007. I know that I will have to go through the entire process (including training) with a CFI, but there are none around that are interested in giving me Sport Pilot hours. What do I do?

Q: Where can a new Sport Pilot get his or her training and flight experience? I can't find a CFI close to me!

A: A BFI!

That's right, the same tried and true Basic Flight Instructors that provided you (and thousands of other ultralight pilots nationwide) with the knowledge and training that made you the safe ultralight pilot you are today, can provide that same level of training for much of the required experience for Sport Pilot. In fact, they can provide the required experience. FAA apparently had the forethought to provide this option to the existing BFIs when the rule was formulated. It will most likely prove to be the saving grace needed to help future sport pilots, and even those existing ultralight pilots who are/were not able to transition into Sport Pilot before the January 31, 2006 deadline. To those of you reading this just before that deadline, I would offer a word to the wise: get with your local BFI and log your training and experience hours. And make sure your BFI signs off those log entries. And, for the new pilots, do the same.

The BFI has always been the most successful (and safe) way to learn the sport of ultralighting, and now in the formative stages of Sport Pilot, the value of the BFI registration has been increased. Even though the exemption that allows the BFI to use his 2-seater for flight instruction goes away January 31, 2008, this final year-plus can allow the existing BFI to provide you with the required experience needed to successfully transition. It will also provide the BFI with valuable income while he or she is transitioning (to Sport Pilot CFI) and perhaps purchasing a new trainer, but also allows those of us from the ranks of the ultralight community to obtain required experience from someone who is acclimated to our form of aviation.

Also, make sure that your BFI is well aware of, and familiar with FAA procedures. Many former ultralight pilots have found that life within the bureaucracy (FAA procedures are quite different than the more familiar ultralight training, registration and testing procedures) can be a rude awakening. If your BFI is not familiar with the FAA system, you may want to spend extra time with a CFI (when you locate one). Please remember, you will still need to get at least 3 hours of prep time from a CFI before you can take your Sport Pilot practical. You should make those arrangements as soon as a qualified Sport Pilot instructor is located.

USUA encourages ALL active BFIs to continue training ultralight and Sport Pilots throughout the entire term of the exemption (through January 2008), and to seriously consider becoming a Sport Pilot (by January 2007), a Sport Pilot CFI (by January 2008), and (if so inclined) a Sport Pilot Examiner.

Where Does USUA Stand?

Much comment and interaction has been written pro and con regarding Sport Pilot in the past few years, and many have made assumptions as to USUA's position regarding the Sport Pilot Rule. Actually, some of it may be accurate. However, much of it is not. I feel that it is time to set the record straight, and clarify the USUA position on this, and possibly, some other matters.

SPORT PILOT
USUA is 100% in favor of Sport Pilot. Because this FAA program allows for legally flying some of the aircraft that have evolved from ultralights (including two seaters) USUA believes that many members will be served well by participating. Is Sport Pilot perfect? No, and even FAA will agree with that. In fact, many individuals within FAA admit that since their advanced involvement began with the rule (after it's official release), they have learned much about the design, engines and piloting of these aircraft. More so than was originally known or taken into consideration while the rule was being formulated. This new understanding is leading to a better appreciation of these factors, and changes and augmentations are being considered and implemented accordingly. It is also no secret that USUA feels that more time is necessary for ultralight pilots to effectively transition into the program under the current provisions offered by FAA. But, I can report that the persons heading the Light Sport Branch and FAA's related divisions are ultralight supportive, and truly are working as best as they can under governmental allowances. Let me be clear, because USUA may have comments and criticisms about Sport Pilot, they are meant only to provide input and guidance to FAA so that a more effective, and therefore a better program, can be available. USUA will continue to support Sport Pilot, and comment on it's progress, limitations, and accolades to FAA, and keep members abreast of policy changes as they happen. We will also promote this end of sport aviation with as much fervor as we have shown for ultralighting.

Early on, USUA was accused of being "on the fence" about Sport Pilot, and by virtue of this position non-supportive. This misnomer most probably stems from comment USUA made to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which formulated the initial beginnings of the rule. (This topic will be addressed a little later in this article. Please stick around, I think you'll find it worthwhile and informative.) However, USUA IS guilty of not providing as much funding and promotional support in those early days as it others may have. It must be realized that USUA has no other divisions from which it can subsidize certain activities (the closest things we have to warbirds are the Quicksilvers Edges and Buckeyes used in the flour bag "bomb drop" competitions...). Our focus and existence has always been on sport aviation (in the form of ultralighting and related activities), and has never been inclined to deviate from that focus. You might remember although, that USUA has been offering generalized Sport Pilot training materials as early as 2003, and when specific manuals and resources became available in December 2004, we were quick to offer these through our Online Flying Store.

ULTRALIGHTS
USUA is still very supportive of Ultralight Aviation. The freedom and privileges associated with ultralights are at the very core of USUA's existence. We have had a love affair with these machines since the very beginning, and will fight to the death to preserve those privileges and the machines, as well as the pilots who choose to fly these wonderful vehicles. This strong attitude towards ultralights has also been confused with non-support of Sport Pilot. USUA is continuing to Promote, Protect and Represent Ultralights, a task that has increased in importance and scope within the past few years. The manufacture and related safety issues involved in ultralight aviation continues at the forefront of USUA activities, and will remain so; along side of Sport Pilot issues.

Now that all of that is clear, USUA faces scrutiny from both sides once again; each pointing at the other as draining time and resources from the other. Stop fighting with yourself and your sport aviation brethren. We're all in this together. It may help to remember three things:

1. Sport Pilot is a reality- it will not go away because some feel it is inconvenient.
2. Ultralighting and Ultralights will continue to exist as long as there are vehicles that meet the definition of Part 103, and there are individuals who choose to fly them.
3. Most ultralight pilots have been flying Light Sport Aircraft for the past several years. Now they can do so legally, with more privileges.

I hope I have helped clear the air about USUA's position regarding these crucial topics, and that by doing so, can continue to represent the sport of ultralighting- whether the pilot has an ultralight or a Light Sport Aircraft we're all in it together.

FROM THE VAULT
ARAC

Let's look at some history, and USUA's place in that history. The excerpts that are provided below are the text from documents written by USUA regarding the events leading up to the "Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft." These comments were written during the time that proceedings were happening, and the course of events were being shaped.

ARAC
In the early 1990's, USUA was involved in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) that was dubbed the "Part 103 Working Group". To further provide insight into the ARAC procedure, the following was written by the Chairman of that committee, Tom Gunnarson, and published by USUA in 1995:

FAA Ultralight Project Overview By Tom Gunnarson Chairman ARAC Part 103 Working Group Frustration at the lack of faster results from the FAA ultralight rulemaking project and confusion generated by side events has taken its toll on the ultralight community. The request for relief from the regulatory burden placed on those who had evolved within Part 103 was submitted in 1988. Hope swelled in anticipation that FAA would understand the need and respond. Seven years of waiting for that response has driven many individuals away from aviation, underground or to take desperate measures. Well meaning individuals have recently attempted to force the issue with separate proposals adding to the instability of an already difficult situation. Some individuals and groups even publicly question the sincerity of those involved in the current project and have misinformed the public of the action taken to date. The "rumor-mill" has created confusion to the point where a straight forward accounting of the project appears in order. I offer the following synopsis of the FAA ultralight rulemaking project to clarify the position of the working group, using some of the group's concept paper language, and to recognize the tremendous effort this group of representatives has provided on behalf of the ultralight community and the future of personal aviation in the United States. On June 4, 1993 FAA Director of Flight Standards Service, Thomas C. Accardi requested that FAA assign the FAA Aviation Advisory Rulemaking Committee (ARAC) a new task to review FAR Part 103 and make recommendations to the FAA concerning whether new or revised standards are appropriate. In reviewing Part 103, the ARAC was asked to consider: 1) USUA's petition to amend Part 103 (Docket #25591) and 2) adding definitions and operating rules to apply to rotorcraft. The assignment was later expanded to include new or revised standards under other regulations which may be affected. The ARAC accepted the task at its August 1993 meeting and formed a working group to be chaired by Tom Gunnarson of the United States Ultralight Association. Since that time representatives from all spectrums of ultralight aviation, several general aviation groups, Transport Canada, and FAA have been working toward a recommendation through meetings, telephone and fax communications. Many of the ultralight representatives have gone to great lengths to participate in this important process. The results to date are impressive considering the slow moving bureaucratic environment and the working group's learning process of ARAC. Initially, the working group developed a recommendation on a conceptual level. The recommendation was that FAA consider airman certification programs to better accommodate aviation groups which extend beyond FAR Part 103 parallel in structure to the regulatory concepts and methods of Primary Category aircraft certification. Both the FAA Internal Team assigned to the Part 103 project and the ARAC unanimously agreed to proceed with the concept. Now, over two years after the working group first met, they prepare specific wording to turn the concept into a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). It is useful to place this Part 103 ARAC project in the appropriate historic context. In brief summary, FAR Part 103 was created in 1982 as a regulatory response to existing and rapidly growing powered hang glider activity. The basic performance needs of "low and slow" recreational flying, coupled with widely available modern materials, made possible the development of new and diverse craft. Both individual citizens and business entrepreneurs utilized this developing community of sport aviators to create a wide variety of aircraft (Ultralight Vehicles) under Part 103. The recognition of the need for training brought FAA exemptions and the development of two-place ultralight training vehicles and flight instructors. In response to an enthusiastic and growing recreational flying community, the marketplace generated many very active ultralight vehicle manufacturing, sales, training and service enterprises. Over the years a desire for increased safety and FAA indications of impending changes, coupled with public misconception of the actual scope of Part 103, has led some well-intentioned people to begin operating outside of that scope. Such operations of "fat" and two-place "ultralights" brings more complex issues associated with passengers and more capable aircraft. Existing regulations do not serve these flight operations well. The challenge has been to discover a regulatory mechanism that reflects the operating needs of pilots and instructors who have pioneered the instructional and developmental paths that have evolved from Part 103.

Let's take a break right here. What have we learned? ARAC started it's work by trying to fix Part 103. Now at this point, some things had changed.

After a huge amount of work over one year's time, the working group concluded that the problems are not within Part 103 but in the operations which have developed beyond Part 103 limitations. Current regulations are not adequate to facilitate proper development these operations. The working group determined that implementation of a mechanism which facilitates suitable pilot certification programs will be the best long-term solution for allowing the "ultralight" community to fully develop. A three day conference hosted by USUA in Washington, DC in November 1994 resulted in unanimous working group consensus of a concept proposal to present to ARAC for approval. During the conference working group members considered what they knew from practical and administrative experience within their ultralight discipline and applied that to a series of statements that describe the situation as follows: It is acknowledged that there are no pilot certificate requirements under the present FARs that are correlated to meet the knowledge and skill requirements of an airman certificate to operate small, light weight, aircraft that have grown within present limitations and privileges of FAR Part 103. The slow, laborious process of regulatory change is expensive and burdensome to FAA and not responsive to this situation. Additionally, there are new classes of aircraft being developed such as "flying platforms." We can even anticipate classes of aircraft being developed that are unknown at this time. The Part 103 working group believes FAA must address this problem now. This proposal, creating an umbrella (or shell) for pilot certification, will solve the present as well as future pilot certification requirements. A parallel need exists to address flight instructor certification and pilot examiner programs consisting of individuals with expertise and experience in these diverse classes of aircraft. Clearly, what is needed, and what is recommended by this working group, is a new form of pilot and flight instructor certification with creation of a new method to more efficiently address the flight examination process. The last twenty years has seen the development of a diverse group of new classes of air vehicles and aircraft. All indications are that this trend will continue. Regulatory change is too slow, cumbersome, and costly a process to deal adequately with the issues raised by these developments. This proposal provides a flexible and cost effective administrative method for future solutions to issues raised which cannot be foreseen at this time. By creating class ratings for pilots more appropriate to the less complex nature of these new classes of aircraft, this proposal will significantly lower the economic threshold for entry into aviation. This provides a more accessible entry point than presently exists, and fills a present gap in the progression of a pilot into higher levels of participation. In turn, this dynamically promotes the growth of civil aviation. Develop airman certification programs to better accommodate aviation groups which extend beyond existing limits of FAR Part 103 parallel in structure to the regulatory concepts and methods of Primary Category aircraft certification. This would not change the existing definitions, privileges or limitations of FAR Part 103, but not prohibit expansion of Part 103. Harmonize with present, as well as future, international pilot certification standards. The working group makes no recommendation as to which section of the FARs these amendments are to be made, or even if a new part should be drawn. This is left to the FAA's determination for efficiency. This approach is reasonable because it mirrors in pilot certification a regulatory process already successfully used in aircraft airworthiness certification. This proposal is the most cost effective way to rapidly and completely integrate operators of these new diverse classes of small aircraft into the community of certificated airspace users. With these statements the working group described the reasons why and the method by which FAA should establish a unique airmen certification system. The FAA Part 103 Team agreed with the concept in a letter dated December 14, 1994. A concept briefing was given to ARAC in February 1995 with unanimous approval from ARAC to proceed toward drafting an NPRM. The ARAC Part 103 Working Group reached a major milestone with ARAC and FAA consensus reached on a regulatory approach regarding operations which have grown out of present limitations and privileges of FAR Part 103. Working group members who took the time and expense to contribute to the concept paper deserve special praise for their original and creative ideas. The result has been a breakthrough in approach to serving the needs of pilots, FAA and public safety. Since February, the working group expects FAA to recognize the value of an umbrella type airman certification program that allows swift and efficient administrative changes as new recreational aviation technologies and operations become established. Development continues on specific language for a curriculum and parameters that would define the category of airmen. As chairman of the working group I see the strength of such a diverse group working together for a common goal. It is my hope that those who would be affected by the working group's proposed recommendation understand the issues and can stand behind this important drive forward in personal aviation in the United States. Show your support of this initiative and share your comments, positive or negative, by contacting your organization's assigned representative. Following is a list of active participants on the working group. U. S. Hang Gliding Assn. Phil Bachman Six Chuter Dan Bailey U.S. Ultralight Assn. John Ballantyne U.S. Powered Parachute Assn. Mel Blaise Light Aircraft Manufacturers Assn. Larry Burke Quicksilver Enterprises, Inc. Lyle Byrum Transport Canada Lindsay Cadenhead NASA Andrew Cameron Paraplane International Corp. Skip Carter FAA Bill Cook Windsports Joe Greblo Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn. Doug Helton Buckeye Powered Parachutes Ralph Howard U. S. Ultralight Soaring Assn. Danny Howell AVEMCO Insurance Co. Chuck Hubbard Experimental Aircraft Assn. Chazz Humphrey Wills Wing Mike Meier U. S. Parachute Assn. Chris Needels U. S. Hang Gliding Assn. Dennis Pagen Flightstar Tom Peghiny Helicopter Association International Glenn Risner TEAM, Inc. Scott Severen Sailplane Homebuilders Assn Jeffrey Snyder Kolb Company Dennis Souder Airpark Owners & Operators Assn. John Stewart, Jr. U.S. Powered Parachute Assn Dan Thompson Ultralight Flying! Magazine Scott Wilcox

As you can see, USUA and the other members of this working group were trying to "fix the ultralight problem." And then, the working group took a different course.

In December of 1995, USUA reported extensively on the ARAC process, and included detailed note on the fledgling USUA website. This report can still be viewed here. I would invite everyone to visit this page and read the transcript.

At this time, the committee had moved into a direction that would use the international microlight definitions as basis for a new category. But what FAR would this new category exist under? Some suggestions were:

• Recreational Pilot (subcategory)
• New Part 104

At this point, many (including USUA) have used the term "hijacked" to describe the actions of the committee. This term may be unnecessarily harsh, and perhaps, does no justice to the following course of events. The direction taken by the working group DID change direction- toward the end result, which we now know as Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft. And, FAA codified that direction into what we are experiencing today. USUA felt at that time, and still feels today, that in keeping with the above stated goal to "match appropriate pilot training programs with any class of aircraft," they did not adequately deal with the issues that should have been addressed by a group known as the "Part 103 Working Group." At this time, USUA issued a statement saying it "does not object" to the direction.

Below is the actual letter of comment written by USUA Founder (and ARAC representative), John Ballantyne.

May 17, 1996 TOM GUNNARSON, CHAIRMAN FAA ARAC WORKING GROUP-ULTRALIGHT PO BOX 667 FREDERICK MD 21705 Re: USUA Comment re ARAC Dear Tom: This responds to your request for The United States Ultralight Association (USUA) to comment on the FAA proposal to the Ultralight ARAC Working Group on April 24, 1996. USUA has provided to Directors, Regional Representatives and Club Presidents a copy of the FAA proposal to the Ultralight ARAC Working Group. There has been much discussion by many individual members. Their guidance to USUA is consistent and, almost without exception, they have recommended the same basic assertion which USUA now provides in this comment to FAA and the other ARAC groups. First, USUA commends FAA for being responsive to the concept of an "Umbrella" of standards under which pilot certification programs may be created and modified by administrative action. USUA recommends that ARAC and FAA progress toward the establishment of the "Umbrella" in law so that individual pilot programs may be activated as soon as possible. Throughout the entire process, USUA and the Ultralight Working Group has reported to FAA need for "discovery of a regulatory mechanism that reflects the operating needs of pilots and instructors who have pioneered the instructional and developmental paths that have evolved from Part 103". Also recommended is pilot/instructor training to be conducted by instructors certified under the same type of administrative "shell" as airmen with the appropriate levels of knowledge, experience and skill for the aircraft for which they are rated. The aircraft to be used by these airmen are defined to be precisely those now in use as ultralight trainers and identical to those defined by the International Microlight Commission. However, FAA has responded with a very different vision in a rough outline containing few specifics. FAA proposes operation of fast, capable little aircraft operated from airports in the center of cities. Operation of fast, sophisticated aircraft over congested areas that are highly-visible and in close proximity to the public is much more that requested by USUA. It seems inevitable that such dramatic increases in pilot privileges will surely result in dramatic increases to pilot training program requirement-precisely what USUA continually reports is avoidable by utilizing the world-accepted definition for ultralights/microlight pilot authority. The Ultralight ARAC Working Group submitted to FAA a document stating that the hang gliding, powered parachute and powered fixed-wing ultralight communities have engaged in pilot training programs which have outstanding safety results. FAA does require periodic reporting of safety and exposure data regarding all two-place powered vehicle training operations, and an examination of those reports confirms the outstanding safety record of current two-place training programs. Yet FAA is making statements which are discouraging qualified individuals from becoming/remaining ultralight flight instructors. Further, FAA's proposal for greatly expanded operations would require substantial increase in pilot/instructor training curriculum. This brings the suspicion of a hidden goal to channel ultralighters to existing FAA Certificated Flight Instructors rather than acknowledging and embracing the existing group of experienced ultralight instructors. Most of all is the basic comment from the Ultralight ARAC Working Group that it recommends an avenue for the logical and orderly development of pilot certification programs for those operators who emerge from the existing limitations of Part 103. Yet FAA response is much more focused on revitalizing general aviation by assuming this area of air sports primarily to become "entry level" pilot training. The concept of repairing FAA's failed Recreational Pilot rule by eliminating privileges and limitations of the rule under which two-place ultralight operations are now taking place seems backward. Rather than ignoring the successful operations in the less-limited environment, why not try to expand the less complex environment simply by matching each new privilege with only the appropriate limitation? USUA is researching the high number of additional limitations incurred by invoking FAR's Part 61 and 91 in the FAA proposal. Those two rules total 103,301 words which is a lot of law for a little aviation. USUA is attempting to determine any demonstrated need to additional limitations such as Emergency Locator Transmitters, minimum equipment requirements including maintenance and inspection, 90 day pilot/instructor reevaluations, prohibition to enter any class A, B, C of D airspace, increase to a minimum of 3-mile visibility in class G airspace, and other limitations proposed by FAA. Although FAA predicts change the following areas, the law presently includes additional requirements for at least a third-class medical certificate and limitation of 50 mile flights. An area in which FAA brings additional doubt about their actual motives is in the selection of the term "lite" for the new pilot rule. FAA suggests that "lite" avoids confusion with existing international ultralight and microlight pilot certificates. The reverse is true. The ONLY terms used throughout the world are either ultraLIGHT and microLIGHT. FAA's "lite" seems more of an effort at a trademark than good grammar. USUA maintains that either ultralight or microlight are the only appropriate terms which should be considered as the show continuity and similarity internationally which is consistent with the original Working Group's recommendation. Overall, USUA reports that the confidence level in FAA by members is very low. The motivation of FAA seems more focused on forcing "advanced ultralighters" into the weakening traditional aviation system than in assisting the development of aviation sports. Most are questioning if FAA is simply repackaging Recreational Pilot to revitalize "entry-level" general aviation rather than recognizing and working with the sporting nature of ultralight and microlight flying. USUA would be interested in considering another path-one which was not directly connected to Recreational Pilot. It is a poorly constructed rule with virtually no acceptance by the aviation community, but which establishes precedence to which all new rules must be judged. Recreational Pilot privileges and limitations are not appropriate for those operations which have modestly exceeded the limitations of FAR Part 103 as described by the working group recommendation. To be distanced (in a regulatory sense) from Recreational Pilot might be wise. USUA sees little choice provided by the FAA presentation. If USUA refused to agree, FAA has indicated that it will move ahead in its own direction anyway. If USUA agrees, it would be agreeing to a proposal which bears little resemblance to the original recommendation. Reluctantly, therefore, USUA would not object to proceeding with FAA to establish the "Umbrella" for pilot certification. However, vast experience in ultralight and microlight aviation brings a warning to FAA that a singular focus on new training programs for pilots of fast, capable aircraft to be flown over our cities and towns will ultimately bring us around to the exact problem of today-excessive requirements for those who wish to fly for fun single and two-place microlights. Best regards, UNITED STATES ULTRALIGHT ASSOCIATION, INC. John Ballantyne, President

Okay, now we can see where it came from, and where it went. When FAA released the rule on July 20, of 2004, USUA released this comment:

Today, in 2006, USUA still supports the rule and this position.

Previous Issues:

May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 (No December 2004 edition)

January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005