Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2130
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby FastEddieB » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:59 am

As an aside, the aircraft in question is a “Part 103 ultralight” with no N-Number.

It was suggested that as such it could not operate out of even a non-towered airport.

Anyone else heard of that? I know virtually nothing about these things.
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com

Merlinspop
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby Merlinspop » Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:48 am

FastEddieB wrote:As an aside, the aircraft in question is a “Part 103 ultralight” with no N-Number.

It was suggested that as such it could not operate out of even a non-towered airport.

Anyone else heard of that? I know virtually nothing about these things.

§ 103.17 Operations in certain 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.
[Amdt. 103–17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 1991]

Found this on the EAA website for part 103 rules.
- Bruce

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2130
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby FastEddieB » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:07 am

Merlinspop wrote:“No person may operate an ultralight vehicle 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.”
[Amdt. 103–17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 1991]

Found this on the EAA website for part 103 rules.


Trying to parse that.

Most nontowered airport’s surface area is Class G, with Class E starting at 700’. So yea or nay for such airport?

Its confusing to me the way it is written.
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

3Dreaming
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby 3Dreaming » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:10 pm

Basically if the airport is in class G airspace you are OK. You can fly in class E airspace, except if the class E airspace goes all the way to the surface for a airport. If the class E airspace does go all the way to the surface, then you need ACT permission to operate within the foot print of that airspace all the way up to 17,999 MSL. In addition to that foot print of class E airspace for a airport you also need ATC permission to operate in class A,B,C, and D airspace, but I bet you knew that already.

Merlinspop
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby Merlinspop » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:57 pm

[edit - the example below is incorrect. Time for me to review airspace depiction.]

So.... scrolling around VFRmap.com for an example, Vinton Co airport (22I), it is okay for a part 103 vehicle to operate out of, above and around, even in the overlying class E, but NOT within the conjoined circles surrounding nearby Ohio Univ airport (KUNI) and the O'Bleness heliport from the surface to 17,999 without permission from the controlling ATC. Correct interpretation?
Last edited by Merlinspop on Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Bruce

3Dreaming
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby 3Dreaming » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:28 pm

Merlinspop wrote:So.... scrolling around VFRmap.com for an example, Vinton Co airport (22I), it is okay for a part 103 vehicle to operate out of, above and around, even in the overlying class E, but NOT within the conjoined circles surrounding nearby Ohio Univ airport (KUNI) and the O'Bleness heliport from the surface to 17,999 without permission from the controlling ATC. Correct interpretation?


That is not correct. KUNI and the heliport are in class G airspace. The overlying class E starts at 700AGL.

An example from our neck of the woods would be KMVN. The dashed magenta line around the airport indicates that the class E goes all the way to the surface. When they say surface area they mean when that airspace actually touches the surface. For example the surface area for a class C airport is the inner most ring on the map. The outer ring indicates class C but has no surface area.

Merlinspop
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby Merlinspop » Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:39 pm

3Dreaming wrote:
Merlinspop wrote:So.... scrolling around VFRmap.com for an example, Vinton Co airport (22I), it is okay for a part 103 vehicle to operate out of, above and around, even in the overlying class E, but NOT within the conjoined circles surrounding nearby Ohio Univ airport (KUNI) and the O'Bleness heliport from the surface to 17,999 without permission from the controlling ATC. Correct interpretation?


That is not correct. KUNI and the heliport are in class G airspace. The overlying class E starts at 700AGL.

An example from our neck of the woods would be KMVN. The dashed magenta line around the airport indicates that the class E goes all the way to the surface. When they say surface area they mean when that airspace actually touches the surface. For example the surface area for a class C airport is the inner most ring on the map. The outer ring indicates class C but has no surface area.


I stand corrected. The dashed magenta line fell completely out of my head. I left my post in place to preserve continuity but noted up front that it was incorrect.
- Bruce

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby MrMorden » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:02 am

FastEddieB wrote:As an aside, the aircraft in question is a “Part 103 ultralight” with no N-Number.


If you are still talking about a Tornado, be very careful. While it’s technically possible for a Tornado to be part 103 compliant, my understanding is that it’s VERY difficult for one make the 254lb weight limit, and it’s also very easy for them to exceed speed limits. About the only wany to do it is to under-engine the airplane and then you can run into climb and acceleration deficiencies. And of course if it’s ever had the second sling seat installed it has to be an LSA.

I know of a couple of pilots locally that have flown “ultralight” Titans that were no such thing.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

3Dreaming
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby 3Dreaming » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:03 pm

MrMorden wrote: And of course if it’s ever had the second sling seat installed it has to be an LSA.


Do you have a source for this?

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby MrMorden » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:13 pm

3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote: And of course if it’s ever had the second sling seat installed it has to be an LSA.


Do you have a source for this?


There are no longer two seat “fat” ultralights. They all had to be converted to E-LSA or they became illegal, unregisterable airplanes after the amnesty deadline. I might be wrong, but I don’t think you can just pull out the second seat and make it legal.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

3Dreaming
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby 3Dreaming » Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:19 pm

MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote: And of course if it’s ever had the second sling seat installed it has to be an LSA.


Do you have a source for this?


There are no longer two seat “fat” ultralights. They all had to be converted to E-LSA or they became illegal, unregisterable airplanes after the amnesty deadline. I might be wrong, but I don’t think you can just pull out the second seat and make it legal.


If you take a LSA out of LSA compliance there is not going back. I don't think the same is true with part 103 flying machines. without looking any regulations up, I think if it had 2 seats at one time and you can strip it down and meet the part 103 requirements I think you are good to go.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby MrMorden » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:22 pm

3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote:If you take a LSA out of LSA compliance there is not going back. I don't think the same is true with part 103 flying machines. without looking any regulations up, I think if it had 2 seats at one time and you can strip it down and meet the part 103 requirements I think you are good to go.


After replying I thought about it some more, and I'm sure you are correct. Since it was never an "airplane" (by FAA definition, anyway) you can configure it any way you want. Even if you flew it with multiple seats, nobody would ever know unless there is a problem. Unless you go to register it or have an accident/incident, the FAA has no clue what the provenance of the airplane was.

The second seat is another one of those "not a problem until it is" areas of aviation for those that choose to break regs.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

3Dreaming
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Feedback sought on Titan Tornado

Postby 3Dreaming » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:00 pm

MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote:If you take a LSA out of LSA compliance there is not going back. I don't think the same is true with part 103 flying machines. without looking any regulations up, I think if it had 2 seats at one time and you can strip it down and meet the part 103 requirements I think you are good to go.


After replying I thought about it some more, and I'm sure you are correct. Since it was never an "airplane" (by FAA definition, anyway) you can configure it any way you want. Even if you flew it with multiple seats, nobody would ever know unless there is a problem. Unless you go to register it or have an accident/incident, the FAA has no clue what the provenance of the airplane was.

The second seat is another one of those "not a problem until it is" areas of aviation for those that choose to break regs.


The second seat is the telltale sign that it needs to be registered. A single seat even if it over weight or to fast doesn't garner as much scrutiny.


Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests