6 ms·

It's a powered ultralight aircraft, which is covered under part 103 of the FAA regulations. There are no licensing, knowledge, age, experience, or medical requ

by tzs 3y ago

It's a powered ultralight aircraft, which is covered under part 103 of the FAA regulations. There are no licensing, knowledge, age, experience, or medical requirements for pilots of ultralights. For the aircraft itself there are no certification standards, other than it has to meet the definition of a powered ultralight. That is: -only one seat -is only used for recreational or sport flying -does not have an airworthiness certificate -weighs less that 254 pounds empty (not counting safety equipment and floats) -has a maximum fuel capacity of 5 gallons -does not exceed 63 mph in level flight at full power -power off stall speed does not exceed 28 mph Ultralights can only be flown between sunrise and sunset, unless they have an anti-collision light visible for 3 miles and are in uncontrolled airspace in which they can fly 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset. They cannot be flown over any congested area or over an open air assembly of people.

mysterydip 3y ago
I don't see how that fits under 254 pounds, unless they stretch the meaning of safety equipment. Most ultralights I've seen are the thinnest scaffolding for a wing or parachute holding a tiny engine and a seat. Maybe the materials are some new composite? I'm also curious how the FAA will determine max fuel capacity for an electric aircraft. Does battery weight count in the "empty" calculation? Is there an amp-hour-to-gallon average? Could I make a frame out of batteries to get "free weight" towards my design?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  How would the batteries be “free weight”? They’re neither safety equipment nor floats. You are free to weigh an electric airplane with the battery discharged, just as you can an ultralight without fuel in it.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    If the batteries are removable, is"without fuel" without batteries or without charge?
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      The FARs make no provision to exclude the weight of anything other than safety equipment (to include floatation). The battery weights don’t count only so long as they’re left behind.
      - mysterydip 3y ago
        it's the "empty" part. I assume the 5 gallons of fuel are not included in the 254 lbs, just the fuel container. They could argue a battery's weight shouldn't be included because it's fuel. I doubt they'd be successful, but I don't know. If they are, then you take that to an extreme and make a cockpit frame out of batteries, and you got a frame for no "weight cost".
        wongarsu 3y ago
        If the batteries are removable and can only be charged outside the drone, then I can see the argument for not counting them as part of the empty plane (since they are something you put in to fly, analogous to aviation fuel). But I don't think that argument would fly once the batteries have a structural purpose.
- zuminator 3y ago
  Under "aircraft" [0] the website states the vehicle is 432 lbs. But it also says it's compliant with the FAA's Powered Ultralight classification. [0] https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Their FAQ says: > In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs, and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment. They may be arguing that the weight of the landing gear counts as floats, which might be true. They may also be wishfully interpreting the FARs and on schedule to learn an expensive lesson in due time. (If so, they wouldn’t be the first startup to pretend the FARs said something other than they did.)
    - StrangeATractor 3y ago
      I wouldn't fuck with the FAA, their interpretation of what they say is what's really the law, not what's written in the FAR. About 30 years ago a pilot in a floatplane was on step as he went under a bridge (he was still in the water, but the floats ride closer to the surface than when it's at near-idle speeds). When the FAA somehow got wind of this, they really put the screws on him because in their interpretation he was flying under the bridge (very illegal), even though he wasn't airborne. Nowhere to my knowledge did the FARs make this distinction between floating and flying. You'd think in a case like this they'd let it go, maybe update the rules to clarify, but they really went after him for it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xeonmc 3y ago
So looks like the regulation is just saying - flying the craft should be a risk to only yourself and not anyone else I would look very carefully at the terms and conditions about liability waivers and safety guarantees of the product.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  It's not like they are going to be able to cover up a bunch of deaths or severe injuries. (Not an endorsement, it looks like investor story time to me, just that they still have a pretty solid incentive to not kill people)
electroly 3y ago
This seems wild to me (I believe you, it's just wild). A quadcopter has to be registered above 250 grams, this requirement goes away if there's a human inside?? Feels like this area between an unmanned drone and the smallest manned airplane is missing regulation.
- tomrod 3y ago
  Not every space needs to be regulated. Presently, ultra lights aren't crowded and adhere to rules. Once people want to use these to simplify their commutes it will become a regulated space.
  - electroly 3y ago
    While true in the general sense, I specifically think this particular space should be. This is an insane device to sell to someone without requiring any licensing or training. I honestly feel the same way about my 249g drone, to a lesser extent--I should have needed to prove that I'm not an idiot before firing it up, but I didn't have to. I both injured myself and lost the drone because I actually am an idiot. I can't imagine what kind of mess I could get into with this size of device.
    - mycall 3y ago
      > This is an insane device to sell to someone without requiring any licensing or training. Large boats are like this too (over 80ft requires salaried captain though).
- dehrmann 3y ago
  I'd rather crash a drone than crash the aircraft I'm in. That, and drones are harder to fly because you have the wrong perspective.
- notatoad 3y ago
  i think it makes sense that there's a lot of regulation in an industry where products are widely available, and there's not a lot of regulation in an industry where products don't exist beyond a few isolated prototypes. this seems like an example of regulatory systems working in a sane way. regulation should follow reality, not lead it.

by tzs 3y ago

mysterydip 3y ago

I don't see how that fits under 254 pounds, unless they stretch the meaning of safety equipment. Most ultralights I've seen are the thinnest scaffolding for a wing or parachute holding a tiny engine and a seat. Maybe the materials are some new composite? I'm also curious how the FAA will determine max fuel capacity for an electric aircraft. Does battery weight count in the "empty" calculation? Is there an amp-hour-to-gallon average? Could I make a frame out of batteries to get "free weight" towards my design?

sokoloff 3y ago
How would the batteries be “free weight”? They’re neither safety equipment nor floats. You are free to weigh an electric airplane with the battery discharged, just as you can an ultralight without fuel in it.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  If the batteries are removable, is"without fuel" without batteries or without charge?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    The FARs make no provision to exclude the weight of anything other than safety equipment (to include floatation). The battery weights don’t count only so long as they’re left behind.
    - mysterydip 3y ago
      it's the "empty" part. I assume the 5 gallons of fuel are not included in the 254 lbs, just the fuel container. They could argue a battery's weight shouldn't be included because it's fuel. I doubt they'd be successful, but I don't know. If they are, then you take that to an extreme and make a cockpit frame out of batteries, and you got a frame for no "weight cost".
      - wongarsu 3y ago
        If the batteries are removable and can only be charged outside the drone, then I can see the argument for not counting them as part of the empty plane (since they are something you put in to fly, analogous to aviation fuel). But I don't think that argument would fly once the batteries have a structural purpose.
zuminator 3y ago
Under "aircraft" [0] the website states the vehicle is 432 lbs. But it also says it's compliant with the FAA's Powered Ultralight classification. [0] https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Their FAQ says: > In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs, and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment. They may be arguing that the weight of the landing gear counts as floats, which might be true. They may also be wishfully interpreting the FARs and on schedule to learn an expensive lesson in due time. (If so, they wouldn’t be the first startup to pretend the FARs said something other than they did.)
  - StrangeATractor 3y ago
    I wouldn't fuck with the FAA, their interpretation of what they say is what's really the law, not what's written in the FAR. About 30 years ago a pilot in a floatplane was on step as he went under a bridge (he was still in the water, but the floats ride closer to the surface than when it's at near-idle speeds). When the FAA somehow got wind of this, they really put the screws on him because in their interpretation he was flying under the bridge (very illegal), even though he wasn't airborne. Nowhere to my knowledge did the FARs make this distinction between floating and flying. You'd think in a case like this they'd let it go, maybe update the rules to clarify, but they really went after him for it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xeonmc 3y ago

So looks like the regulation is just saying - flying the craft should be a risk to only yourself and not anyone else I would look very carefully at the terms and conditions about liability waivers and safety guarantees of the product.

maxerickson 3y ago
It's not like they are going to be able to cover up a bunch of deaths or severe injuries. (Not an endorsement, it looks like investor story time to me, just that they still have a pretty solid incentive to not kill people)

electroly 3y ago

This seems wild to me (I believe you, it's just wild). A quadcopter has to be registered above 250 grams, this requirement goes away if there's a human inside?? Feels like this area between an unmanned drone and the smallest manned airplane is missing regulation.

tomrod 3y ago
Not every space needs to be regulated. Presently, ultra lights aren't crowded and adhere to rules. Once people want to use these to simplify their commutes it will become a regulated space.
- electroly 3y ago
  While true in the general sense, I specifically think this particular space should be. This is an insane device to sell to someone without requiring any licensing or training. I honestly feel the same way about my 249g drone, to a lesser extent--I should have needed to prove that I'm not an idiot before firing it up, but I didn't have to. I both injured myself and lost the drone because I actually am an idiot. I can't imagine what kind of mess I could get into with this size of device.
  - mycall 3y ago
    > This is an insane device to sell to someone without requiring any licensing or training. Large boats are like this too (over 80ft requires salaried captain though).
dehrmann 3y ago
I'd rather crash a drone than crash the aircraft I'm in. That, and drones are harder to fly because you have the wrong perspective.
notatoad 3y ago
i think it makes sense that there's a lot of regulation in an industry where products are widely available, and there's not a lot of regulation in an industry where products don't exist beyond a few isolated prototypes. this seems like an example of regulatory systems working in a sane way. regulation should follow reality, not lead it.