HOLY COW! Don't Fly Here With Your Ultralight Aircraft! C229

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
  • Courtney points out that "low and slow" ultralight flying over populated areas is a violation of Part 103 ultralight regulations. She also suggests an alternative method of approaching your landing to lesson the risk of hitting obstacles if your engine fails.
    #quicksilver #ultralight #microlight
    Note: A LEGAL ultralight is limited to 1 seat and requires no pilot certificate to fly. A 2-seat "ultralight" is, in fact, a Light Sport Airplane and requires a pilot certificate to fly. There is no such thing as a "legal 2-seat ultralight."
    Courtney is an FAA-certified Advanced Ground Instructor (AGI).
    Courtney's Website: www.CourtneyTak...
    I'm on TiKTok! www.tiktok.com...
    Courtney's Facebook Group: / deafpilots

Комментарии • 72

  • @CLdriver1960
    @CLdriver1960 7 месяцев назад +5

    Bull 💩, Enough with the drama. You just contradicted 91.119.
    The pilot was not ‘illegally’ flying his UL. He had every right to be in that position as he was LANDING.
    Whether you think it was too shallow of an approach, even if you’re correct, is only your opinion.

    • @CLdriver1960
      @CLdriver1960 7 месяцев назад +1

      @@mcog01 Agreed. You and I are similar vintage in flying experience. I don’t have a problem with social media creators in general, but do take issue with posts like this.

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  7 месяцев назад +1

      This wasn't an airport.

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  7 месяцев назад +1

      You're using the argument from authority fallacy. Just because you've hours/years of "experience" in all things aviation, doesn't make one correct. I've an AGI, by the way. And a pilot certificate.
      Further, nobody cares what you're "tired" of. It doesn't make a case for an argument.
      This was not at an airport. if it was, it'd be legal. If it were an airport, that water tower would not be directly in the flight path,

    • @CLdriver1960
      @CLdriver1960 7 месяцев назад +1

      @@CourtneyTakesFlight nowhere in the regulations does it say ‘airport’. 91.119 stipulates ‘landing’.

    • @CLdriver1960
      @CLdriver1960 7 месяцев назад +1

      @@CourtneyTakesFlight Nice try…
      Reading and understanding what the regulations say, and applying them in daily operation for decades before you arrived on the scene does make one correct, and I’m not only talking about myself.

  • @qazwsxedcrfvtgb8877
    @qazwsxedcrfvtgb8877 7 месяцев назад +2

    Its a flying three-wheeler

  • @FourthWayRanch
    @FourthWayRanch 7 месяцев назад +2

    Your not supposed to drive 30mph over the speed limit in the right lane trying to pass people either.
    The FAA doesn't think it's necessary for people who weld on aircraft to be certified.
    God forbid an Ultralight might have to land on your street one day.

  • @jimkaczaviator5614
    @jimkaczaviator5614 7 месяцев назад +3

    Too many armchair lawyers out here.

  • @vg23air
    @vg23air 2 месяца назад +1

    learn the rules, and WHY 103 was created, nothing has changed in the core since it was created, "watch 103 is born" onmy channel for a CLEAR CONCISE advisory by the FAA into the federal register about 103 when it was created and why, it explains what FARS you have to follow (103 only), what training you have to have (NONE).

  • @Hecker9974
    @Hecker9974 7 месяцев назад +6

    holy moly 😮

  • @RM-el3gw
    @RM-el3gw 7 месяцев назад +4

    niice vid. Cheers Courtney

  • @foodandsleep2417
    @foodandsleep2417 7 месяцев назад +3

    looks like he was flying some sort of approach pattern throughout the videos. I'm canadian so the rules may be different but we have the same rules but they're not applicable for the purposes of take off and landings. so, while if he was just out flying over town that would be illegal, but if he was flying over town to make a landing it wouldn't be illegal.

  • @sam1174
    @sam1174 7 месяцев назад +4

    What he did was completely legal. He was landing. It would have been safer to fly a steeper approach, but it's not a requirement.

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  7 месяцев назад +1

      It wasn't an airport.

    • @varieze117pj7
      @varieze117pj7 7 месяцев назад +3

      And not a way to set a good example of responsible flying. Making people on the ground angry hurts all pilots.

    • @sam1174
      @sam1174 7 месяцев назад +4

      @@CourtneyTakesFlight It makes no difference. He was landing. As long as it was legal to land there, he didn't violate any FARs.

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  6 месяцев назад

      Nope, Part 91 does not apply to Part 103. Contact your CFI to explain this to you.

  • @vg23air
    @vg23air 2 месяца назад

    the (b) you reference in part 91 does NOT apply to 103 VEHICLES, it even has the word AIRCRAFT in it, a 103 vehicle is ALLOWED to do things GA cant, a 103 VEHICLE can legally operate 5 feet off the ground. Has been the rule since 1980's.

  • @vg23air
    @vg23air 2 месяца назад

    an ultralight VEHICLE is not an AIRCRAFT when you review FAA rules. Anywhere they reference AIRCRAFT that rule does NOT apply to a VEHICLE it applies only to AIRCRAFT

  • @rickswain147
    @rickswain147 5 месяцев назад +1

    Wasn't getting any notification of your new postings

  • @emotodude
    @emotodude 7 месяцев назад +2

    Remember ultralights are NOT aircraft. The rest of the FAR AIM does not apply. Only the rules in Part 103 / AC 103-7 apply. I'm not saying the person in this video was not an idiot... Edit: I did make a dumb mistake and corrected in this post. Point still stands.

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  7 месяцев назад +3

      I understand the point you're making, but you're splitting hairs. Those that know the rules, know they're vehicles in the eyes of the FAA, the ones that need to watch this video, dont care, but need to understand they can't do this!

    • @XRakkgruntX
      @XRakkgruntX 7 месяцев назад

      @@CourtneyTakesFlightstill he has a valid point.
      I don’t agree with the pilots flight path but I’m not the FAA…

    • @DanasWings
      @DanasWings 7 месяцев назад +1

      @GabrielDeVault That's not correct; FAR part 103 applies to ultralights. You may be thinking of AC103-7 which explains the actual regulations in part 103 and provides additional information, but the pilot in this video was clearly violating § 103.15.

    • @emotodude
      @emotodude 7 месяцев назад

      @@DanasWings whoops, you are correct. I did mean Part 103 / AC103-7. My bad. "congested areas" are specifically identified on FAA sectionals, so unless you know exactly where this person was flying and have x-referenced to a sectional I'm not sure you can say they were violating 103.15. Again, still not defending this person as an idiot...

    • @DanasWings
      @DanasWings 7 месяцев назад +1

      @@emotodude Nope, congested areas are not depicted on the sectionals; the FAA defines then on a case by case basis, generally if somebody complains.

  • @Didjeridoolove
    @Didjeridoolove 7 месяцев назад +2

    Subscribed 👍🏼, and enjoy every video!! Looking for a CFI close by..

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  7 месяцев назад +1

      Thank you. I do recommend Captain Drake's Family Aerial Adventures. I don't know if it's near you, but they have lodging and it'll be an adventure!

  • @onthemoney7237
    @onthemoney7237 7 месяцев назад +2

    Always good thanks for sharing 👍🇺🇸

  • @vg23air
    @vg23air 2 месяца назад

    the operator of an ultralight vehicle must follow part 103 and ONLY part 103. No other FARS applies

  • @andrewkovach9330
    @andrewkovach9330 7 месяцев назад +1

    So if one, is flying over 1000 feet is ok to fly over a city?

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  7 месяцев назад +2

      Not in an ultralight. I will say that the higher you are, the less likely you'll run into trouble.

    • @vg23air
      @vg23air 6 месяцев назад +1

      no, you must fly around them, if you fly over the incorporated area of any town city settlement, expect to have a problem if you get reported.

    • @andrewkovach9330
      @andrewkovach9330 6 месяцев назад +1

      @@vg23air
      Thank you for your reply.
      I am still trying to learn how to read Charts .
      Got any tips ?

    • @vg23air
      @vg23air 6 месяцев назад

      @@andrewkovach9330 yes, there are plenty of online LIVE courses you can take for general knowledge, they also cover CHARTS etc in those live classes.

    • @andrewkovach9330
      @andrewkovach9330 6 месяцев назад

      Thanks

  • @vg23air
    @vg23air 6 месяцев назад

    § 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.
    IT DOES NOT SAY ALL OTHER AIRCRAFT, it say AIRCRAFT, cause you are flying a VEHICLE not an AIRCRAFT
    (b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.
    IT DOES NOT SAY ALL OTHER AIRCRAFT, it say AIRCRAFT, cause you are flying a VEHICLE not an AIRCRAFT
    (c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered ultralights.

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  2 месяца назад

      Your interpretation isn't going to fly with the FAA.

    • @vg23air
      @vg23air 2 месяца назад

      @@CourtneyTakesFlight
      operating an ultralight vehicle
      ultralight vehicle
      ultralight vehicle
      ultralight vehicle
      shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.
      aircraft.
      aircraft.
      aircraft.
      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.
      IT DOES NOT SAY ALL OTHER AIRCRAFT, it say AIRCRAFT, cause you are flying a VEHICLE not an AIRCRAFT

  • @patrickmckowen2999
    @patrickmckowen2999 7 месяцев назад +2

    👍

  • @vg23air
    @vg23air 6 месяцев назад +2

    § 103.15 Operations over congested areas.
    No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.
    CAN'T BE CLEARER, THE FAA EXPECTS THE PARTS THAT FALL OF YOUR VEHICLE TO HIT DIRT, NOT A HOUSE PEOPLE CARS BUILDINGS.
    EVEN IN REMOTE AREAS, THE FAA, AND NOT YOU, WILL DETERMINE IF YOUR OPERATION WAS IN COMPLIANCE HERE OR NOT.
    If you fly over a national forest totally devoid of people then come upon one tent in a field and overfly it, you are in violation, IF IT IS IN AN OPEN AREA.
    You also may NOT fly over any highway or roadway, except MAYBE to cross it, but if a part falls off and impacts a car, expect a violation. You and your lawyer can fight it.

    • @FourthWayRanch
      @FourthWayRanch 5 месяцев назад +1

      F THE FAA

    • @vg23air
      @vg23air 5 месяцев назад

      @@FourthWayRanch lol u cant f the fed they exist to f u

  • @witch532
    @witch532 5 месяцев назад

    Define "Congestion".

  • @electronicsafrica
    @electronicsafrica 7 месяцев назад

    He was VERY close to those power lines ... luckily y'all only have 110v ac ;)

    • @who_ever
      @who_ever 7 месяцев назад +4

      some could be 24,000 v ac or 138 kv ac 3 phase from a sub station. yeah lucky us.

    • @CourtneyTakesFlight
      @CourtneyTakesFlight  7 месяцев назад +2

      Those wires are 440 volt before a transformer steps it down to 110 at the house.

    • @who_ever
      @who_ever 7 месяцев назад +2

      I live near a sub station (200 m) with those lines And a 600 v DC Light rail train line next to said station. But one could fry either way. My brother saw a sky diver hit some power lines next to the airfield , flash and a pop. Was he caught?