Ultralight discrimination Article

barnstorm2

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
14,573
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Aircraft
2-place Air Command CLT SxS (project), & Twinstarr Autogyro
Total Flight Time
750+hrs and climbing
I read the article below then when to the PRCity Airport website and put my 2-cents into their feedback page.

If you care about our rights to fly as ultralight pilots please do the same.

Airport Feedback / Comments Page:

https://www.prcity.com/government/feedback.asp

Article:

Paso Robles Says No to Sport Pilots?
The Paso Robles (Calif.) Municipal Airport has banned ultralight operations, and has proposed new operating rules that would single out ultralight flyers for scrutiny, Denis Porter, president of the Paso Robles Ultralight Association, told AVweb on Tuesday. The airport said last month that ultralight operations were in violation of its operating permits and safety standards, and complex regulations and compliance issues would have to be sorted out before a suitable operating area could be designated. Porter said his group filed a formal complaint with the FAA last month, alleging that ultralight pilots are being unfairly discriminated against. The impact of that philosophy on Sport Pilots (many are expected to be crossover ultralight pilots still flying the same equipment) is yet unknown -- as is the philosophy's popularity. "They looked at us as a nuisance," Porter said. "Even though this is not a busy airport, and we've been operating there for 25-plus years without any problems." Only about a dozen pilots and a half-dozen aircraft make up the ultralight group, he said.

In addition to the current ban, the airport proposed last fall that under new operating rules, ultralight pilots must show documentation that they are certified by the U.S. Ultralight Association or an equivalent organization, and must abide by strict flight rules that designate flight paths and altitudes. Other pilots are not required to show their certificates, Porter said. Further, ultralight pilots could fly only after signing a statement certifying they are aware of the rules and will abide by them. "This singles out ultralight pilots for scrutiny, and violates our privilege to fly under FAR Part 103," Porter said. He added that he and the other members of his group plan to convert to Sport Pilot certificates and get N-numbers for their aircraft as soon as possible. But he expressed concern that that will not satisfy the airport, and the issue will change from discrimination against ultralights to discrimination against light-sport aircraft.
 
Tim,

These guys need to stop whining and actually read the FARs. If it's a private airport, the manager can discriminate in whatever way he chooses. Even if the airport is public and has received federal funds, the airport manager has the unilateral discretion to prohibit Part 103 operations.

If these guys ever walk the walk, and become licensed Sport Pilots flying registered machines, then the issue of federal funding will decide the argument. Even then, the airport manager can require liability insurance, provided he requires it for all aircraft. That may prove another hurdle.

I don't mean to sound grumpy, but this "discrimination" word is widely abused. If they have a complaint with the airport manager operating within his legal bounds, they need to take it up with the government, and get the rules changed.
 
Last edited:
Paul,

You are correct. I may have jumped-the-gun and falsely assumed they recieved public (Federal) funds since they are a city operated airport and not a privately owned airport (Municipal Airport's in my experience have almost always got Fed funds but of course some may not).

Does anyone have the link that lists Fed-Funded Airports?

If they are receiving fed-funds then as you state still ban UL operations, if they are deemed unsafe. I believe some paperwork is required with this as well.

I have reviewed this airports web site and it seems clear that it has a very open land around the airport and not busy engough for UL's to be real safety problem IMHO.

While we can not force them to allow ULs though use of FARs I still think that a city/gov run airport should allow free access to UL's and I feel it is important to voice this to the city and the manager's bosses.

If they were in violation of the FARs I would not be asking people to send in their opinions to the web site I would be urging the FAA to take legal action.


I don't want to sound grumpy either ;) but I have walked the walk and I am not a sport pilot but a private pilot. However, I STILL INTEND TO FLY ULTRALIGHT AIRCRAFT. I feel 103 still has it place and I don't like to see UL activities banned on the whim of some AP manager when the airport is not busy or in any way unsafe for UL operations.

The managers job (I assume) is to serve the public and UL pilots are public too.
 
Last edited:
...but still allowed to ban Part 103. Tim, the solution to this will be found through good PR, not through the FAA, city council, or the courts. But, you probably already know that! :)
 
Ken,

Thanks! That is the one. I need to bookmark that.

Mike,

Excellent. Thank you. We should post that somewhere so more people know what the rights and proceedures are when dealing with this issue!

Paul,
I agree, always be on the best airport behavior. However, this is no sure fire cure for idiot airport managers and they do exist. I firmly support 103 operations, possibly because I love flying ULs and I am biased.

I don't want to go into the story here but I have seen what I would call real "discrimination" against ultralight gyroplanes. There might not be gyros at this airport but I am sympathetic.
 
Back
Top