What is the current status of ADS-B for ultralights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ultralight ADS-B?
  • Start date Start date
U

Ultralight ADS-B?

Guest
Posting here so I can do so anonymously, since I'm probably also going to file an ASRS report on this, although nobody did anything wrong.

I fly an ultralight (in addition to being a professional pilot). Yesterday I was flying at a local uncontrolled field, at about 3000 MSL/1500 AGL (GPS altitude). I have a radio and was making appropriate transmissions on CTAF. I have a form of traffic alerts on a popular ultralight phone app, which uses internet traffic. It showed a jet passing me on the left at fairly close range. When I turned to look and saw, it was extremely close.

I'm not exaggerating that it was close. Overlaying the jet's ground track with mine shows (depending on timing) it could have been as close as 400 feet laterally. Vertically is a little harder to tell, but I was looking mostly level at the airplane, maybe a little bit up.

I checked the various ADS-B tracking sites and listened to liveATC. The aircraft was on approach control frequency, was being vectored for a visual at a local towered field, and was at an appropriate altitude and position for that. Even worse, the controller had given the aircraft two instructions of "turn 10 deg right for vectors", which pointed the aircraft almost right at me. At no point did the pilots report me in sight, nor of course were they warned about me - because I was certainly invisible to ATC.

And that's the issue for me. Nobody did anything wrong. But if I had been in an airplane, I would have had ADS-B, or at least a transponder, and ATC would certainly have not only called out traffic, but would likely have given different headings. The airport I was at, while nobody was flying there at the time, certainly is busy enough that ATC usually would see traffic there and avoid it. But they couldn't see me, because I don't have ADS-B, and as far as I know, can't even get ADS-B on my ultralight in the U.S.

Does anybody know if that's not true? Are there any ADS-B options for ultralights? UAvionix sells one in Europe for drones, but it's something like $3000 (which is about the cost of my ultralight) and isn't available in the U.S. anyway.

I would like the option (but not the mandate) to be able to have a lightweight ADS-B Out transmitter on my ultralight. And I can't be the only one.

This incident was really a pretty close call. I'd like to avoid anything like it again.
 
There is currently no legal way to install ADSB-out in an ultralight.
Ultralight ADS-B? said:
...if I had been in an airplane, I would have had ADS-B, or at least a transponder, and ATC would certainly have not only called out traffic, but would likely have given different headings.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily; a lot of airplanes, including mine, don't have ADSB or transponder.
 
You can buy ADS-B in receivers and you would be picking up on any nearby ads-b out aircraft, but as previously mentioned, no option for ADS-B out on a "no N number" ultralight.
 
Ultralight ADS-B? said:
I have a form of traffic alerts on a popular ultralight phone app, which uses internet traffic. It showed a jet passing me on the left at fairly close range. When I turned to look and saw, it was extremely close.
Click to expand...

Seems like this really got your attention. The fact that it happened and you are looking for answers is a good thing.

I have a fellow student pilot at our field that uses a radio but has no transponder or ADS-B out installed. At one time he had an ADS-B in readout on his iFly but he hardly ever uses it. The other problem is that he doesn't fly patterns the few times I do see him go up. We've had conversations but that's another subject. The problem is not knowing where to look for him as his radio work is lacking too when he attempts it. He's currently searching for a new instructor ... and he needs one.

As others have noted there isn't any ADS-B for ultralight type aircraft. You could tend to stay a bit lower but I understand that altitude is your friend if something goes wrong. But having the ability to see other traffic, both with the naked eye and the use of traffic inputs on a screen, is obviously the best you can do. Also learn and avoid what may be approach/departure routes in the area you are flying in. We have a few MTRs close by and we have to be cognizant when flying that area.

Lately the nearby training schools have greatly increased visiting our field for the use of overhead power off approaches from 3000' over the field. I have learned to not only search the pattern before taking the runway but all of the sky overhead.

Diligence is needed in proper scanning and is extremely important as even the ones you can spot get in the way ... but that's another subject also.
 
This is just from an internet search, but if true, just bring a drone along with you in the ultra light.

ADS-B Transponders for Broadcasting: Dedicated hardware allows drones to both receive and transmit ADS-B signals, enabling "see-and-be-seen" functionality in shared airspace. Examples include:
  • uAvionix's ping1090i, a compact dual-link ADS-B transceiver designed for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS), which supports broadcasting the drone's position when regulations permit.
  • Aerobits' OEM ADS-B modules for drones, used in sense-and-avoid (SAA) or detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems to improve collision avoidance.
  • These are often used in beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations or enterprise applications.
 
Why were you flying an ultralight in the approach path of jet traffic in the first place? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Be safe out there, make good decisions.
 
Well, you do have a radio. In lieu of ADSB-out, could you monitor approach in that area, and possibly advise them of your location and heading?
 
Ultralight ADS-B? said:
Posting here so I can do so anonymously, since I'm probably also going to file an ASRS report on this, although nobody did anything wrong.

I fly an ultralight (in addition to being a professional pilot). Yesterday I was flying at a local uncontrolled field, at about 3000 MSL/1500 AGL (GPS altitude). I have a radio and was making appropriate transmissions on CTAF. I have a form of traffic alerts on a popular ultralight phone app, which uses internet traffic. It showed a jet passing me on the left at fairly close range. When I turned to look and saw, it was extremely close.

I'm not exaggerating that it was close. Overlaying the jet's ground track with mine shows (depending on timing) it could have been as close as 400 feet laterally. Vertically is a little harder to tell, but I was looking mostly level at the airplane, maybe a little bit up.

I checked the various ADS-B tracking sites and listened to liveATC. The aircraft was on approach control frequency, was being vectored for a visual at a local towered field, and was at an appropriate altitude and position for that. Even worse, the controller had given the aircraft two instructions of "turn 10 deg right for vectors", which pointed the aircraft almost right at me. At no point did the pilots report me in sight, nor of course were they warned about me - because I was certainly invisible to ATC.

And that's the issue for me. Nobody did anything wrong. But if I had been in an airplane, I would have had ADS-B, or at least a transponder, and ATC would certainly have not only called out traffic, but would likely have given different headings. The airport I was at, while nobody was flying there at the time, certainly is busy enough that ATC usually would see traffic there and avoid it. But they couldn't see me, because I don't have ADS-B, and as far as I know, can't even get ADS-B on my ultralight in the U.S.

Does anybody know if that's not true? Are there any ADS-B options for ultralights? UAvionix sells one in Europe for drones, but it's something like $3000 (which is about the cost of my ultralight) and isn't available in the U.S. anyway.

I would like the option (but not the mandate) to be able to have a lightweight ADS-B Out transmitter on my ultralight. And I can't be the only one.

This incident was really a pretty close call. I'd like to avoid anything like it again.
Click to expand...
You have the right to operate a 50 kt ultralight at about any uncontrolled airport you desire and when you want to. As the lower aircraft approaching the airport, it is also likely you clearly have the right of way.

In the 60s, there was a black and white public safety commercial which addressed right away in automobiles. The end line of the commercial, depicting a terrible 2 car accident said, “He was right, dead right”. You are setting up a situation to be dead right.

You are responsible for situational awareness and to mitigate risk on every flight you take Very slow speed aircraft in a traffic pattern increases mid air collision risk. You should re-evaluate your choice of airports and select arrival times with less risk. When you hear (and in your situation see high speed arrivals on your device) break out of the pattern, eliminate the mid air risk and then come back to land. You say you are a professional pilot, fly like it.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
it is also likely you clearly have the right of way.
Click to expand...

§ 103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.​


(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.

Daleandee said:
What is an ultralight gonna use for an N number?
Click to expand...
Mode C does not transmit an N number.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:

§ 103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.​


(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.


Mode C does not transmit an N number.
Click to expand...
That’s cool, but Part 91 also has right of way restrictions on the arriving or overtaking aircraft. The last time I checked, a UL is an aircraft and reg doesn’t say except ULs.

Aircraft​

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

You can be dead right if you want to, but I don’t believe the NTSB is going to rule the UL did not have the right of way when struck from behind.
 
Last edited:
Preflight planning and preparedness.

Access the appropriate charts of the intended flight path and determine what risks and obstructions are present.

I do understand that UL pilots are not inclined to do this, and pay a price. The powered parachute into the power line well discussed here, is an example of undesired out come, No other party was responsible for that crash, fortunately non fatal'

Your big risk is flying under an airliner which is in approach configuration, and experiencing wing vortex, hundreds of feet lower. It is invisible, and I have experienced that in a Cessna 150, at least1500 feet below, and slammed our heads against the overhead.

Again, severe clear, in a 4 seat Piper, never saw the airliner, seat belts tight, banged my head again.

I personally would never fly an ultralight within many miles of an air carrier airport, simply because there is no way to protect from vortices, and they are invisible.

Without knowing which UL you are flying, I suspect that such an encounter would leave you wishing for a parachute.

UL's are suited to rural environments.

Since the airline crew did not see you, no need for an ASR report, but the result could be rulemaking that closes all airspace near any air carrier airport to UL's...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:

§ 103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.​


(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.


Mode C does not transmit an N number.
Click to expand...

My bad. I was considering that the OP mentioned 3000' and a jet on final approach for a nearby towered field. Seems to me that area would most likely be a place where at least mode S would be required (with ADS-B) if not in an ultralight. I have the same question that @Lachlan asked earlier ...
 
Clip4 said:
That’s cool, but Part 91 also has right of way restrictions on the arriving or overtaking aircraft. The last time I checked, a UL is an aircraft and reg doesn’t say except ULs.
Click to expand...
You need to check Part 103. An Ultralight is NOT an aircraft. It is a vehicle which is why, for one, no certificate or training is required to operate one, altogether it is pretty dumb to do so without at least training in a light weight, high drag vehicle.
 
X3 Skier said:
You need to check Part 103. An Ultralight is NOT an aircraft. It is a vehicle which is why, for one, no certificate or training is required to operate one, altogether it is pretty dumb to do so without at least training in a light weight, high drag vehicle.
Click to expand...

FAA regulation 14 CFR 1.1, defines "aircraft" as any device used or intended for flight in the air, which includes ultralights.
 
Daleandee said:
FAA regulation 14 CFR 1.1, defines "aircraft" as any device used or intended for flight in the air, which includes ultralights.
Click to expand...
Except Part 103 says an ultralight is a VEHICLE, not an aircraft and is exempt from any rules as pertains to AIRCRAFT. There are rules they must follow that are similar and some are identical as aircraft rules. The whole Part 103 is two pages long. It was written that way specifically to avoid all the certification and operation rules from aircraft. It may look like a duck, fly like a duck, walk like a duck but it isn’t a duck ;)

About FAA Part 103 for Ultralights | EAA

Adopted and effective in 1982, Part 103 formally established what truly is recreational flight.
www.eaa.org www.eaa.org
 
No offense bro, but you nearly killed alot of people flying an ultralight near an approach path of a jet. Fly that thing low and away from populated areas. I’m glad you are ok, but man be careful.
 
X3 Skier said:
You need to check Part 103. An Ultralight is NOT an aircraft. It is a vehicle which is why, for one, no certificate or training is required to operate one, altogether it is pretty dumb to do so without at least training in a light weight, high drag vehicle.
Click to expand...
If you say so, if you are PIC of an airplane, which regulations apply to you - Part 103 or Part 91? As stated before, you are going have argument over who is dead right in this situation.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But this part does…

91.1(e) This part does not apply to any aircraft or vehicle governed by part 103 of this chapter

Apparently you can be dead wrong, too.
Click to expand...
The Part 91 regulations do not apply to operations governed by 103, except the PIC of an airplane is not in an aircraft governed by 103. The definition and the operation of an airplane apply. You as an airplane operator are still required to follow the regulation and the applicable definition.

You can always write the FAA Chief Cousel for an opinion. You can argue the UL must give you the right away and you
don’t have to give and aircraft (LS) the right away in an overtaking situation in a traffic pattern.

Both regulations can apply separately to each aircraft. For what it’s worth, AI agrees with me.

“The ultralight aircraft has the right-of-way over the overtaking airplane because, under FAA regulations, ultralight pilots must yield to all other aircraft, and overtaking aircraft must yield to the aircraft being overtaken. The approaching airplane from the rear is the overtaking aircraft, and the ultralight is the overtaken aircraft.”
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The Part 91 regulations do not apply to operations governed by 103, except the PIC of an airplane is not in an aircraft governed by 103. The definition and the operation of an airplane apply. You as an airplane operator are still required to follow the regulation and the applicable definition.

You can always write the FAA Chief Cousel for an opinion. You can argue the UL must give you the right away and you
don’t have to give and aircraft (LS) the right away in an overtaking situation in a traffic pattern.

Both regulations can apply separately to each aircraft.
Click to expand...
I’ll stick with “see and avoid.”
 
Thank you all for the responses. Some I feel may have misinterpreted my OP, but that's okay, I'll try to clarify. I appreciate that some of you seem to understand my concerns.

Also, while ADS-B is not available for ultralights and other aerial vehicles like drones in the U.S., the technology exists as it is available in other countries for these purposes. I would really like it to be legal here for such uses as well. It's an extremely valuable tool for so much of aviation, why not extend those benefits to all aerial vehicles?

I did find this article from 3 years ago about the Uavionix product, which is currently not available in the U.S. but is exactly what I think we need.

ADSB Out for Paramotors & Other Ultralights | FootFlyer

www.footflyer.com www.footflyer.com

I've looked into some other options but it seems that most are not legal in the U.S., which seems a shame.

Also, for the see-and-avoid issue, "avoid" is the tough one. My airspeed is roughly 25 knots. At times I have seen single-digit ground speeds. So I'm not getting out of the way very quickly at all. So an ADS-B transmitter that says "hey, I'm here, hey, I'm here" to other pilots seems like a really great idea.

AvNavCom said:
FLARM?
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with this, but will look into it. Thank you.

szwinger said:
This is just from an internet search, but if true, just bring a drone along with you in the ultra light.

ADS-B Transponders for Broadcasting: Dedicated hardware allows drones to both receive and transmit ADS-B signals, enabling "see-and-be-seen" functionality in shared airspace. Examples include:
  • uAvionix's ping1090i, a compact dual-link ADS-B transceiver designed for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS), which supports broadcasting the drone's position when regulations permit.
  • Aerobits' OEM ADS-B modules for drones, used in sense-and-avoid (SAA) or detect-and-avoid (DAA) systems to improve collision avoidance.
  • These are often used in beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations or enterprise applications.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, while all of these seem to be perfect and exactly what I'm talking about, they also seem to not be legal in the U.S.

Lachlan said:
Why were you flying an ultralight in the approach path of jet traffic in the first place? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Be safe out there, make good decisions.
Click to expand...

Could be misunderstanding me, or I may not have been clear. I was at about 1500 AGL over an uncontrolled airport. I was listening and transmitting on the CTAF for that airport. That all seems reasonable and not inappropriate to me. This was, however, about 9 nm away from a towered field, that the jet was flying into (on a long base leg). I will likely reconsider flying this high at that location in the future, but as an airplane pilot, 1500 AGL doesn't seem very high. After all, that is traffic pattern altitude for turbines. The issue, to me, is that if I was flying an aircraft in the traffic pattern, ATC would have seen me and likely not have sent the jet so close to the uncontrolled airport on the way to its destination. I could have the same safety benefits with one of the small ADS-B out systems that are apparently not legal in the U.S.

Half Fast said:
Well, you do have a radio. In lieu of ADSB-out, could you monitor approach in that area, and possibly advise them of your location and heading?
Click to expand...

I may try that. I am not sure how willing ATC will be to work with an aerial vehicle that they can't see on radar, though (If they can even hear me with my handheld).

Daleandee said:
My bad. I was considering that the OP mentioned 3000' and a jet on final approach for a nearby towered field. Seems to me that area would most likely be a place where at least mode S would be required (with ADS-B) if not in an ultralight. I have the same question that @Lachlan asked earlier ...
Click to expand...

It was 3000 MSL, or 1500 AGL. ADS-B is not required for aircraft at this location, although it is close to such an area.

texasclouds said:
No offense bro, but you nearly killed alot of people flying an ultralight near an approach path of a jet. Fly that thing low and away from populated areas. I’m glad you are ok, but man be careful.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your directness, but I think that's a bit harsh. I wasn't flying in a place where I'd consider it a normal arrival/departure corridor for jet aircraft - I wasn't hanging out on final at ORD or anything. And as I was only at 1500 AGL, that seemed low enough to me to reasonably be out of the way of anybody not actually landing at the airport I was flying at (and talking on CTAF at). The jet was just coming from a certain direction that created the issue. As stated above, though, I will probably not fly this "high" again at this airport.

Thanks all!
 
Ultralight ADS-B said:
I may try that. I am not sure how willing ATC will be to work with an aerial vehicle that they can't see on radar, though (If they can even hear me with my handheld).
Click to expand...

I doubt they'd "work with you" as far as suggesting a vector for you or whatever. OTOH, if you told them where you were and asked whether you might be in anyone's approach path, they'd probably tell you if you were in a dangerous place and I'm sure they'd appreciate knowing where you are. Just expect a response along the lines of "Get the hell away from there; we're using that airspace" instead of active cooperation.

You might be surprised how far your handheld will reach while you're airborne. VHF frequencies are line-of-sight and 9nm isn't really that far with no obstructions in the way. BUT, even if the tower didn't hear you, that approaching jet would almost certainly have heard you! That could be even more effective.
 
Ultralight ADS-B said:
Thank you all for the responses. Some I feel may have misinterpreted my OP, but that's okay, I'll try to clarify. I appreciate that some of you seem to understand my concerns.

Also, while ADS-B is not available for ultralights and other aerial vehicles like drones in the U.S., the technology exists as it is available in other countries for these purposes. I would really like it to be legal here for such uses as well. It's an extremely valuable tool for so much of aviation, why not extend those benefits to all aerial vehicles?

I did find this article from 3 years ago about the Uavionix product, which is currently not available in the U.S. but is exactly what I think we need.

ADSB Out for Paramotors & Other Ultralights | FootFlyer

www.footflyer.com www.footflyer.com

I've looked into some other options but it seems that most are not legal in the U.S., which seems a shame.

Also, for the see-and-avoid issue, "avoid" is the tough one. My airspeed is roughly 25 knots. At times I have seen single-digit ground speeds. So I'm not getting out of the way very quickly at all. So an ADS-B transmitter that says "hey, I'm here, hey, I'm here" to other pilots seems like a really great idea.



I am not familiar with this, but will look into it. Thank you.



Unfortunately, while all of these seem to be perfect and exactly what I'm talking about, they also seem to not be legal in the U.S.



Could be misunderstanding me, or I may not have been clear. I was at about 1500 AGL over an uncontrolled airport. I was listening and transmitting on the CTAF for that airport. That all seems reasonable and not inappropriate to me. This was, however, about 9 nm away from a towered field, that the jet was flying into (on a long base leg). I will likely reconsider flying this high at that location in the future, but as an airplane pilot, 1500 AGL doesn't seem very high. After all, that is traffic pattern altitude for turbines. The issue, to me, is that if I was flying an aircraft in the traffic pattern, ATC would have seen me and likely not have sent the jet so close to the uncontrolled airport on the way to its destination. I could have the same safety benefits with one of the small ADS-B out systems that are apparently not legal in the U.S.



I may try that. I am not sure how willing ATC will be to work with an aerial vehicle that they can't see on radar, though (If they can even hear me with my handheld).



It was 3000 MSL, or 1500 AGL. ADS-B is not required for aircraft at this location, although it is close to such an area.



I appreciate your directness, but I think that's a bit harsh. I wasn't flying in a place where I'd consider it a normal arrival/departure corridor for jet aircraft - I wasn't hanging out on final at ORD or anything. And as I was only at 1500 AGL, that seemed low enough to me to reasonably be out of the way of anybody not actually landing at the airport I was flying at (and talking on CTAF at). The jet was just coming from a certain direction that created the issue. As stated above, though, I will probably not fly this "high" again at this airport.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...
A transponder really isn’t going to help you much. When ATC terminates service, they are go8ng to simply state the number of targets in the pattern, not that you are a UL. Aircraft arriving without radar service also do not check aircraft type. Once in the pattern, its see and avoid.
 
Clip4 said:
A transponder really isn’t going to help you much. When ATC terminates service, they are go8ng to simply state the number of targets in the pattern, not that you are a UL. Aircraft arriving without radar service also do not check aircraft type. Once in the pattern, its see and avoid.
Click to expand...
umm....
Why would services have been terminated for the airliner 9 miles out from the controlled field where they are landing?

atc would call out VFR traffic with altitude to that airliner, AND provide separation vectors, wouldn't it? (They would have seen a 1200 mode C squawk on their scope)
 
Brad W said:
umm....
Why would services have been terminated for the airliner 9 miles out from the controlled field where they are landing?

atc would call out VFR traffic with altitude to that airliner, AND provide separation vectors, wouldn't it? (They would have seen a 1200 mode C squawk on their scope)
Click to expand...

An airliner operating at an airport in uncontrolled airspace?

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
 
Clip4 said:
An airliner operating at an airport in uncontrolled airspace?
Click to expand...

Clipper, you really need to work on reading and retention.

Ultralight ADS-B? said:
The aircraft was on approach control frequency, was being vectored for a visual at a local towered field, and was at an appropriate altitude and position for that.
Click to expand...

First of all, the OP said "jet" not airliner; could've been a bizjet, whatever. More importantly, it was flying into a TOWERED field and being vectored.
 
Clip4 said:
If you say so, if you are PIC of an airplane, which regulations apply to you - Part 103 or Part 91? As stated before, you are going have argument over who is dead right in this situation.
Click to expand...
Pretty simple. If it is an airplane, Part 91, If it is an Ultralight (aka Vehicle), Part 103. My point is know the rules that apply and whatever they are, don’t do anything stupid in the air or on the ground since you can get killed wether you are following rules or not.
 
X3 Skier said:
Except Part 103 says an ultralight is a VEHICLE, not an aircraft and is exempt from any rules as pertains to AIRCRAFT. There are rules they must follow that are similar and some are identical as aircraft rules. The whole Part 103 is two pages long. It was written that way specifically to avoid all the certification and operation rules from aircraft. It may look like a duck, fly like a duck, walk like a duck but it isn’t a duck ;)

About FAA Part 103 for Ultralights | EAA

Adopted and effective in 1982, Part 103 formally established what truly is recreational flight.
www.eaa.org www.eaa.org
Click to expand...

I'm certain that when enforcement action comes that ultralight will become an airplane ...
 
Ultralight ADS-B said:
It was 3000 MSL, or 1500 AGL. ADS-B is not required for aircraft at this location, although it is close to such an area.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't think of a scenario where a jet is 1500' AGL on approach (~ 5 miles from touchdown @ 3º) to a towered field and ADSB is not required (unless we're talking class D) ...
 
Daleandee said:
I'm certain that when enforcement action comes that ultralight will become an airplane ...
Click to expand...
So if you are following the Part 103 regulations for an ultralight, the FAA can take enforcement action for not following the Part 91 regulations for an aircraft? I suppose then they can take enforcement action against a part 91 activity for not following the Part 121 Regulations? I give up.
 
Ultralight ADS-B? said:
Does anybody know if that's not true? Are there any ADS-B options for ultralights? UAvionix sells one in Europe for drones, but it's something like $3000 (which is about the cost of my ultralight) and isn't available in the U.S. anyway.

I would like the option (but not the mandate) to be able to have a lightweight ADS-B Out transmitter on my ultralight. And I can't be the only one.

This incident was really a pretty close call. I'd like to avoid anything like it again.
Click to expand...
Regardless of all the cute back-and-forth here about ultralights, aircraft, definitions and who has right-of-way, there IS an underlying issue that the FAA has, for whatever reason, deliberately ignored a not-insignificant portion of the flying community by their precious ADS-B regulations. Pilots of Cubs, Champs, Chiefs, Taylorcrafts, Luscombes, and other aircraft that are legal to fly as aircraft without electrical systems are frequently criticized on this forum and elsewhere for being collision hazards, while repeated efforts and inquiries on some people's parts to see if a portable battery-operated ADS-B out solution could be implemented have been withstood. It would seem to me that the OP would be well to bring some documentation of the incident to his local Congressional representative and ask them to look into asking the FAA to make a provision for a battery-operated anonymous ADS-B out solution that would allow for aircraft in such categories, and ultralights, etc. to be "seen" especially by fast-movers.

I know that if one was priced in the Uavionics range, I would absolutely buy one and use it whenever flying certain aircraft without electrical systems, if only to aid those more dependent on it. I'm still cool with see-and-avoid for myself, if I don't have an ADS-B in device, but knowing how people I've flown with fly, I'd really like to show up on their fishfinder.
 
X3 Skier said:
So if you are following the Part 103 regulations for an ultralight, the FAA can take enforcement action for not following the Part 91 regulations for an aircraft? I suppose then they can take enforcement action against a part 91 activity for not following the Part 121 Regulations? I give up.
Click to expand...

I didn't say what you are indicating at all, don't get twisted over this as I merely pointed out that while I've always heard that they were vehicles, others have pointed out to me that "FAA regulation 14 CFR 1.1" is a regulation and it plainly says "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." :dunno:
 
Daleandee said:
I didn't say what you are indicating at all, don't get twisted over this as I merely pointed out that while I've always heard that they were vehicles, others have pointed out to me that "FAA regulation 14 CFR 1.1" is a regulation and it plainly says "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." :dunno:
Click to expand...

That definition is so broad it could apply to a football.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top