By ANN Correspondent John Ballantyne

Many ultralighters and sport pilot enthusiasts have opinions about the FAA's (long) proposed Sport Pilot regulations. Some like it, and some do not. Some feel it will revitalize aviation, while some feel it will kill the "light" end of aviation. Debate is often lively. However, everyone agrees on one basic fact: FAA's long hesitation, in issuing the rule, is strangling the community.

Most believe that the hype about the sport pilot rule for "fat single and two place ultralights" began earnestly in December of 1999 when the Ultralight Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) sent recommendations for regulatory change to FAA. Since then, many individuals have awaited a new rule from FAA. In due course, FAA released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).

The public responded with an incredible 4,943 comments. Magazines and organizations proclaimed their views, and encouraged debate. Recently, the rule began the rounds of regulatory agencies (Department of Transportation, then Office of Management and Budget) on its way, presumably, toward final release.

Many ultralighters know that part of the story well. However, fewer remember the late 1980's when FAA promised a revolutionary new airworthiness program for light aircraft, called Primary Category. Like sport pilot, Primary Category was billed as "the answer" that would revitalize light aviation. It was three years in development, and it took more than two years to reveal its amazing lack of impact. In the end it made very little difference as it faded from sight. While in development, however, the community became paralyzed in anticipation of the final rule.

Those Who Refuse To Learn From History Are Doomed to Repeat It

It was 1987 when the United States Ultralight Association publicly petitioned FAA for changes to ultralight regulations. For about 18 months, FAA spokespersons went about the country soliciting input and 'appearing' responsive. However, action did not actually occur until the FAA created the ARAC committee in 1993. Again, many put off buying or starting flight instruction to see what would happen.

Still Waiting...

Even fewer remember that way back in 1984 when the FAA, while "working with industry," developed and released the Recreational Pilot certificate program. Everybody knew that it was intended to draw in the fat ultralight pilots and to relieve pilots of the requirement to maintain an FAA medical certificate. No ultralighters were allowed to participate on the committee which drafted the basis for the rule. To the disappointment of many, the third-class medical certificate requirement for pilots remained in the final rule (and doomed it). And guess what? Many hesitated to become involved because of the regulatory fluctuation.

Incidentally, I happened to be in the FAA cafeteria in Washington, DC, the day after release of the highly anticipated Recreational Pilot rule. The project manger was being celebrated, and was all aglow at getting "her" Recreational Pilot program completed. Today, the lack of participation is an embarrassing joke on the FAA. They blame the failure on the DOT's refusal to allow the elimination of medical certificates. Only a few of us remember the name of the project manager who was so applauded for so short a time. She quietly moved on to a distant FAA region.

From 1984 through today, you can begin to see the loop of failed regulatory actions for which sport pilot is the most recent action, and the one creating so much (false?) hope for a badly needed regulatory option.

Today; there is unanimity about the damage (long noted by ANN... long before anyone else) being caused to the "ultralight" community who awaits (endlessly) FAA's action. As we have seen, there has been a cascading series of failed or ineffective FAA actions over more than 15 years. Each rule has had three phases: anticipation, issuance of final rule, and the failure to be effective.

What industry can withstand such a long siege of disappointments?

What would "ultralight" aviation be like if FAA had done better in the mid 1980's?

I believe there would be many, many more pilots, planes and airparks than have emerged/persisted under the constant barrage of regulatory threats which have marched on, one after another.

I also believe the persistence and determination of those relatively few who continue to fly, teach and sell "fat single and two place ultralights" is a resounding testament to the potential this area of aviation offers. My hat is off to each of those who operates within the present-day, misshapen skeleton of regulations, exemptions and advisories.

I sincerely hope that FAA gets it right this time. Their history is not too good, however…

Public Feedback

The following question was asked of some "sport pilot" community members. It is likely that their candid answers capture the general feeing of the community in general.

Q-How optimistic or pessimistic are you about Sport Pilot?

Frank Beagle, EAA Announcer (Center)

We all have been looking forward to it. Two-place ultralight flying will benefit by having an inexpensive, certified aircraft. That will bring respectability to our industry and it's about time. BUT, how big will be the hoops?

Jim Sweeney, Powrachute

Ultimately, it will become the regulation of light aircraft. The frustration is getting to it.

John Hawk, Pilot

I think it's great! I am 64 years old and there is no guarantee that I'll get a medical next time.

Stephane Marois, Murphy Aircraft Mfg Ltd.

We are really for it. We (Murphy Aircraft) have three models that already are "advanced ultralights" in Canada. Then again, it would be nice if we had it this week. Many people are waiting to see what it will look like.

Marshall McFarland, Sky Sports

We have been doing this (flying "light sport aircraft} for how long? I'd LIKE to be optimistic. I am concerned because the regulatory process can take a life of its own.

Vern Peckham, Commentator

Completely pessimistic because the advantages do not out way the disadvantages. Plus, the time taken causes so much frustration that surely no one will like the final rule.

Jim Stephenson, Aero Sports Connection

Very optimistic. Minor issues will come, but we have needed this rule for a long time.

Garey Bittenbender, Destiny powered Parachutes (No Photo)

For powered parachutes I am not sure. I am hopeful, but this long time waiting is hurting our community.

Eddie Johnson, Powrachute

I have two answers. First, I am optimistic about long-term affects. However, I am pessimistic about short-term damage regarding development of instructor base during the transition period. I speak only about powered parachutes, however. The rule may not be such a problem for other segments. I think it will help CFI's in fixed wing aircraft. I do not know about trikes. Fixed wing will have the easiest transition.

Jimmy Long, Sky Ranger

I am for it. I believe the sport is about to take off.

Chazz Humphrey, EAA Ultralight Council

The rule can be a great thing for those who cannot get medical certificates. I am not sure about what effect it will have on ultralight people. Single-seat powered parachute pilots, instructors may find Sport Pilot beyond reason, and single seat trike pilots probably will benefit because their aircraft can fit the ultralight definition. It will be a plus for those who fly two-seaters.
Overall, sport pilot will be a plus, but not the plus we expected.

Sharon Wescott, M-Squared

I am optimistic that there will not be a sport pilot rule. If FAA actually releases sport pilot, I am afraid that it will result in giving up the safety in the sport we have gained in the past 10 years because many existing ultralight pilots will find compliance excessively burdensome.