Congressman Robert E. Andrews

506A White Horse Pike

Haddon Heights, NJ 08035

Dear Congressman Andrews:

I would like to express my feelings about a new FAA regulation concerning small aircraft. This new regulation is not directed at improving national security, as have been other considerations in that area, but at reducing the continuing losses in the number of licensed general aviation pilots. The new Light Sport Aircraft regulation attempts to relieve the cost and regulatory burden on light plane pilots being pressured to abandon their flying activity and on potential new participants considering entering the sport. As with many things, the intentions may be laudable, but the implementation causes problems.

The new LSA regulation defines a medium performance single engine two place aircraft. Unfortunately for the US manufacturing base, aircraft which meet these specifications, and particularly those that meet them well, are chiefly designed and built in Europe, as was the first (German) aircraft certified under LSA regulations. More than three quarters of the current certified LSA offerings, and many of the most viable, are existing foreign products. This gives the foreign producers a huge head start in the market. They have limited new start-up costs, parts and material purchases and associated manufacturing will be done out of the county, technical design and manufacturing expertise will be foreign based, and they enjoy the limited legal exposure (a major consideration of aircraft manufacturing) of a foreign based company. US operations for these designs will be mainly sales and service.

Another victim of the new LSA regulations promulgated by the FAA, is the very successful (perhaps too much so) ultralight pilot training program. Ultralighting created itself as a new sport and thus escaped the present heavy regulation of the general aviation industry. The FAA defined these craft as vehicles rather than aircraft, as long as they did not violate a simple set of limits on weight, speed, fuel capacity, occupants (1), and avoided interference with other aircraft operations. These limits grew from the evolution of the original ultralight designs from earlier foot-launched hang gliders. The FAA also later acquiesced to allowing the use of slightly higher performance two place designs for training ultralight pilots, under the tutorage of instructors qualified by programs developed by FAA recognized ultralight organizations, This activity produced thousands of trained instructors and tens of thousands of ultralight pilots under a continually monitored program.

The new FAA regulations force the ultralight organizations to eliminate their ultralight instructor and associated pilot training programs. Functions that are now being assigned to FAA certified instructors. Formal ultralight training started out years ago with only FAA instructors and certified aircraft being available for ultralight pilot training. During that early period many kit builders took to the air without any training. Under the new regulations, existing two-place ultralight trainers can be examined and certified as Light Sport Aircraft, but will not be able to be used for hire for pilot training. Expectedly, these changes have had an instantaneous negative economic impact on the ultralight instructors and organizations previously formulating and supervising training programs, and on ultralight manufactures producing two-place training vehicles. Even those ultralight designs that would physically meet LSA requirements and have previously been sold as kits to pilots building them as experimental aircraft, can not be offered as LSA compatible until new documentation on manufacturing, pilot training, etc. is generated and certified. Not as easily done as just converting German to English. And picture the liability exposure of a manufacturer offering pilot training literature with his product.

The FAA has a primary responsibility for assuring the aviation related safety of those in the air and on the ground. Additionally, I believe any regulatory agency has a real responsibility to consider the effect of its actions on small business, technological innovation, and the economic and even recreational impact. Possibly because of the NIH (not invented in FAA) factor, the FAA has never been particularly supportive of the ultralight movement, and frequently FAA field activity has been negative, if not antagonistic. Perhaps there is some feeling that more ultralight pilots mean less GA pilots and correlates with a need for fewer FAA field offices, certified instructors, and examiners.

I think the poor fit of the new LSA regulations to the ultralight environment is not due to attention to, but inattention to, results. Surprisingly to many, ultralighting has not proved to be an aviation arena disaster. However, since the two-seat instructional waiver of twenty five years ago, the FAA has not moved favorably on the ultralight community's (USUA) request for increases in parameters like allowable weight or fuel. And now they will potentially press to eliminate those illegal safety enhancements on existing "fat" ultralights. Thousands of ultralight pilots would not have willing added equipment to their vehicle that would have compromised safety. Present day participants are not the young John Moody example of hang-glider enthusiasts of years past, so wheels, brakes, electric start, more take-off power for "mature" bodies, and enough gas to get somewhere (not just the bottom of the hill) and back are useful pilot accoutrements.

Numbering in the tens of thousands of participants, the ultralight sport is not large. Possibly there are that many squash enthusiasts. The economic impact of a production shift to overseas is un-measurable, compared to shifts in the car industry, the steel industry, the clothing industry, the shoe industry, or the computer industry. Regardless of the impact, I believe all other things being equal, it is the responsibility of government, and particularly any regulatory agency, to protect small business, technical innovators, product manufacturers, and the multitude of domestic goods and service producers supporting these activities. Things like the US designed ballistic safety parachute, low cost adjustable pitch propellers, powered parachute vehicles, and portable aviation based GPS units found an early adopter base in the ultralight movement.

Let the Light Sport Aircraft activity continue, but don't kill the F103 waiver for instructional ultralights or the very productive ultralight organization supervised pilot training program. Pressure the FAA to make realistic changes in the F103 regulation to allow starting equipment, safer engines, and more fuel capacity in modern single place vehicles. Few aircraft ever come down because of too much fuel, and certainly a five- gallon limit is marginal. Ultralighting generates interest in flying and feeds pilots into general aviation. Decreasing the number of manufactures in the ultralight area and eliminating ultralight organization self-training will have no measurable positive effect on safety and will not arrest the decline in certified pilot registrations. It is said that the LSA regulation is the result of a consensus group's (users, producers, designers, specialists, etc.) activity, arrived at by mutual consent. No ultralighter, unless suffering from the Patty Hearst Syndrome, not being presented with Hobson's choice, or not having their own particular importer certification axe to grind, would find the dictated major reorganization of existing ultralight activity a responsible solution.

The EAA, ASTM, FAA choreographed "consensus developed regulation" is not the result of the merged feelings of thousands of participants being taken into account by enlightened representatives. If there is to be any relief from the changes imposed on the ultralight movement by the new regulations, serious help from outside the ultralight community is needed. One of the major ultralight organizations (USUA) has been unsuccessful in even getting a simple extension in the looming January 2008 deadline. Perhaps, the coming Congressional reauthorization of the FAA is a vehicle to get its attention. A challenge to the effects of the new LSA regulation is an opportunity to promote some of the smallest All American technical business manufacturers, and to save this hands-on recreational activity for the low budget enthusiast. Please consider it.

Very truly yours,

Joseph H. Marshall

President