During a break the EAA representative said to the USUA representative that,
"USUA and EAA simply have different views: EAA doing the 'move underneath GA more to eliminate the us-and-them' stuff, and that USUA is seeking more separation to identify the sporting thing."
Some USUA members have asked how some of the most important decisions were made in the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Ultralight Working group. Here are portions of that crucial meeting of December 6, 1995, at FAA headquarters in Washington, DC.
In attendance:
Federal Aviation Administration, Sailplane Homebuilders Association, Experimental Aircraft Association, United States Powered Parachute Association, United States Hang Gliding Association, TEAM Aircraft, Airpark Owners and Operators Association, Ultralight Flying! Magazine, United States Ultralight Association, FlightStar Sportplanes, and Wills Wing (Hang Gliders).
Decisions made:
Note: A powered parachute association petitioned FAA separately for airman certificates in FAR part 61. No action taken by ARAC working group.
(Most names have been deliberately left out in the interest of diplomacy.)
Tom Gunnarson, USUA, chaired the meeting (as he did all ultralight ARAC meetings). The FAA Ultralight Team Leader opened the meeting with a few comments. "There have been some intense high level meetings about Part 103 at FAA," stated FAA. "In a nutshell, we realize the ultralight sport is growing. There is more pressure on FAA to take some type of action. It's more important than ever for this group to dig down and move forward."
Working Group Chairman Tom Gunnarson then presented a review of a recent General Aviation Operations ARAC Meeting. FAA recommendations from that meeting strongly indicated that FAA felt ultralights should somehow now be placed under FAR Part 61.
The Working Group reviewed the notes from the November, 1994 meeting in which the group unanimously agreed to create an "umbrella concept" for pilots and planes, which had evolved from FAR Part 103.
A quick review was given on the advantages of the "umbrella concept." Advantages pointed out were:
Discussion then began on items yet to be resolved, with work on the wording of the actual draft document.
(Months later FAA dropped the umbrella concept without explanation.)
Name of Category:
Two (2) motions were entered to name for the new category of airmen:
A vote was taken. Six (6) members voted for Microlight Pilot; One (1) member voted for Recreational Pilot (subcategory); Four (4) members of the group abstained from voting. USUA voted for Microlight Category.
The Working Group agreed to call the new category Microlight Category.
What Part of the FARs should the new Microlight Category be placed?
Four (4) motions were entered as to what part of the FARs the new Microlight Category should be placed:
A vote was taken. Seven (7) members of the group voted to leave the placement of the category up to the expertise of FAA; One (1) member voted for a new Part 104; Two (2) members voted to place the category under FAR Part 61; Zero (0) voted to place the new category under a subcategory of Recreational Pilot.
The Working Group agreed that what part of the FARs the new Microlight Category should be placed should be left up to the expertise of FAA.
Maximum Aircraft Definition:
Maximum aircraft definition to be operated by a Microlight Category pilot was
decided by the Working Group as follows:
No more than:
A Microlight Category pilot may not operate as pilot in command in an aircraft carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire. Also, a Microlight Category student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless that student meets the requirements appropriate to that class of airmen certificate.
Operations Over Congested Areas:
The original draft document for Microlight Category did not allow for operations of aircraft over congested areas.
Two (2) motions were made concerning flight over congested areas:
A vote was taken. Six (6) members of the group voted for allowance of flight over congested areas; Two (2) members voted for avoidance of flight over congested areas; Two (2) members abstained. USUA voted to avoid congested areas.
USUA abstained but the majority requested the authority.
Accept the draft and give to FAA for action:
A motion was made and the group unanimously agreed to accept the Microlight Category draft document with the changes and decisions from this meeting. Chairman Tom Gunnarson would make proposed changes, and then submit the document to FAA and would ask for technical writing support.
Additional FAA staff then attended the meeting, and restated FAA's desire for the Working Group to fit any recommendations under FAR Part 61, preferably as a subcategory of Recreational Pilot.
U.S. Powered Parachute Association Petition:
Chairman Tom Gunnarson then brought up the issue that the U.S. Powered Parachute Association's (USPPA) separate petition to FAA had been referred to the Working Group for discussion. This petition asked for placement of powered parachute operations under FAR Part 61. The USPPA spokesperson was to have forwarded a copy of the petition to each member of the Working Group for review before the December 6 meeting. Since no members had received a copy of the petition for review, the USPPA representative said he would forward a copy of the petition to each member of the Working Group for discussion at a later meeting.
Grandfathering Issues:
FAA suggested that the FAA Regulatory Technical Team could discuss Grandfathering and Advisory Circular issues and make recommendations to the ultralight Working Group. Broad, conceptual discussion followed without clear conclusions.