gpetty
Member
This question isn't strictly about homebuilts but more broadly about the experimental category and the rules that govern it.
I'm an atmospheric scientist, and there is atmospheric research that would be best conducted from an ultralight or at least from a very low-speed, lightweight aircraft even if it doesn't precisely meet the weight/speed limitations of Part 103 for ultralights. To take the simplest possible (contrived) example, one could imagine flying low over cornfields and measuring temperature and humidity and then publishing a research paper on how much heat and moisture are exchanged by the corn plants with the atmosphere.
In short, no paying passengers, no paid cargo; just a pilot/scientist and a measuring device.
Research like this would normally be conducted in support of peer-reviewed research grants given out by public funding agencies such as NASA or the National Science Foundation. My salary as a university researcher does not depend on whether I fly the plane or even conduct this particular research (as opposed to, say, trying to understand corn transpiration from a purely theoretical perspective), so there is no commercial angle whatsoever. On the contrary, this is by definition research in the public interest, because that's the only kind that NASA or NSF is supposed to fund. But I can say that a conventionally certificated aircraft, even a smallish one like a Cessna 152, is incompatible with the research in question, because it's too big, too fast, too costly, and too dangerous to fly in tight circles over cornfields less than 50 feet above the tassels.
My question: what legal options already exist for me to conduct research with non-conventional aircraft without a specific exemption from the FAA? Part 103 for ultralights specifies that they must be intended only for "sport or recreational use," which this is clearly not. Homebuilt experimentals are likewise not certificated for any other purpose. Same for light sport, as I understand it. Yet it seems counterintuitive that there should be a complete prohibition on using these aircraft for anything but recreational and sport purposes, especially since my university (for example) would probably put greater restrictions on my use of an ultralight than the FAA does on recreational pilots operating under part 103.
If anyone has any insights into the gray area between recreational/sport and commercial uses and how these are viewed by the FAA, I'd be very happy to hear them!
- Grant
I'm an atmospheric scientist, and there is atmospheric research that would be best conducted from an ultralight or at least from a very low-speed, lightweight aircraft even if it doesn't precisely meet the weight/speed limitations of Part 103 for ultralights. To take the simplest possible (contrived) example, one could imagine flying low over cornfields and measuring temperature and humidity and then publishing a research paper on how much heat and moisture are exchanged by the corn plants with the atmosphere.
In short, no paying passengers, no paid cargo; just a pilot/scientist and a measuring device.
Research like this would normally be conducted in support of peer-reviewed research grants given out by public funding agencies such as NASA or the National Science Foundation. My salary as a university researcher does not depend on whether I fly the plane or even conduct this particular research (as opposed to, say, trying to understand corn transpiration from a purely theoretical perspective), so there is no commercial angle whatsoever. On the contrary, this is by definition research in the public interest, because that's the only kind that NASA or NSF is supposed to fund. But I can say that a conventionally certificated aircraft, even a smallish one like a Cessna 152, is incompatible with the research in question, because it's too big, too fast, too costly, and too dangerous to fly in tight circles over cornfields less than 50 feet above the tassels.
My question: what legal options already exist for me to conduct research with non-conventional aircraft without a specific exemption from the FAA? Part 103 for ultralights specifies that they must be intended only for "sport or recreational use," which this is clearly not. Homebuilt experimentals are likewise not certificated for any other purpose. Same for light sport, as I understand it. Yet it seems counterintuitive that there should be a complete prohibition on using these aircraft for anything but recreational and sport purposes, especially since my university (for example) would probably put greater restrictions on my use of an ultralight than the FAA does on recreational pilots operating under part 103.
If anyone has any insights into the gray area between recreational/sport and commercial uses and how these are viewed by the FAA, I'd be very happy to hear them!
- Grant
