I've only heard of 1 case where the feds weighed an ultra-light and it was after the fucking idiot flying it was turned in for buzzing a house.

One of my shooting buddies was the FAA Inspector that caught the report. He told me that by and large, the weight is ignored as long as they stay otherwise legal airspace and flight rules-wise and don't do stupid shit.

I don't really know why you are looking at 103.... But if you hold an FAA certificate, I would not willingly fly a 'fat' 103. Since you have an A&P cert.... You have no plausible deniability.

$13.00 per flight hour is nice!

Was not an accusation. I said I don't know why you are looking at 103, it could have been for many reasons, I didn't know them..... I just gave an opinion, and you did ask for opinions... If I were an A&P, I would not be looking at flying an illegal 103.

If I had no certs.... Well, I have seen them just tell guys to get an LSA or PPL if they had no certs. But if you have a cert, I have seen guys get violated.
My buddy built a Cub and he knew it was not 103 but claimed it was. The FAA one day met him at the airport with scales. The airport manager had an issue with 103 and was trying to get rid of them. He had no certs, so they just told him to push the plane into a hangar, get an N number for it, and get at least an SPL before he flew it again.  Another guy had a single engine drifter with a 503. It had two seats and carried more than 5GA. He claimed the 2nd seat was "baggage" and that he never put more than 5GA in the tank....And one day he rolled into an airport for breakfast and got ramp checked. He was a parachute rigger and the FAA (Same FSDO) basically tried to rape him.

So if I were an A&P (The person who is supposed to be the one to weigh airplanes), or held any certificate.... There is no way in hell I would fly an illegal 103.

And you could get an SPL pretty quickly (read: Not much money) and that would open up a bunch of aircraft.

https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/28930

Some more

https://www.oig.dot.gov/search?search_api_views_fulltext=without+certificate

Fat and 2 seat "ultralights" are the reason the FAA came up with sport pilot. Without the problem of unregistered 2 seaters I don't think sport would have been pushed.
An FAA inspector doesn't need scales to determine what is and is not legal since most you will see flying are kits.
I never had a problem when I was flying ultralights (before sport) because I flew one that was legal / very close to the limit as built. Now if you were flying with the capability of carrying a second passenger you were setting yourself up for trouble.
I'm not sure what the environment is like now since sport was released.

I've always heard that if it looks like an ultralight, flies like an ultralight, and quacks like an ultralight, and you don't do anything stupid, the feds aren't going to come around with a set of scales.  That is, they aren't going to nail your ass over an ultralight that might be a few pounds heavy (and I mean a few, not 100+) or stalls 3mph fast, provided it "looks" right, has one seat and a 5gal gas tank, flies slow, etc.

That said, for a little more money you could pick up an LSA-eligible certified or homebuilt airplane and do light sport training, and be able to carry a friend or go further.

How feds handle things, will vary from area to area.

It can even vary from fed to fed, in the same area.

Lots of them are reasonable and won't give you a hard time, if you are making an effort to be safe and not trying to be a pain for them.  They may just point out a minor violation and tell you to get it taken care of.

Some of them will spend hours looking for the slightest little thing to bust you on, just to make it clear that they have a job to do.

It is worth noting that the FAA gives weight breaks for floats and ballistic chutes/safety equipment so you can have a little wiggle room there. As an example, the Mosquito UL helicopter isn't legal unless you have the floats installed.

Sport pilot was more of a safe haven for people with medical issues IIRC.

Ended up being that way, but I don't think the FAA had that as one of their objectives.

Going by the FAA's wording in the final Sport Pilot rule in the Federal Register, their primary intention for LSAs was training people for ultralights.  They honestly expected most LSAs to look like two-seat ultralights, with minimal or no avionics, no electrical system, open cockpit, and speeds below 85kt or something like that.

That most LSAs wound up being "real" airplanes shoehorned into the performance limitations (and maybe meeting them just on a technicality) to get around the medical requirements never occurred to them.  Typical government thinking for you.

Going on fuzzy memory:

Cessna 150/152 - doesn't meet LSA requirements

65hp Cub - does meet LSA requirements

65hp Champ - does meet LSA requirements

65hp Taylorcraft - does meet LSA requirements

65hp Ercoupe - does meet LSA requirements


Back when I first read the limitations, and looked at how they compared to existing (at the time) certified aircraft, my impression was that somebody decided that keeping the specifications below the level of a 150 would limit things to a few old 2 seat antiques, the 2 seat ultralights, and some homebuilts.

It's true, those airplanes are covered by the LSA rule.  My point was that the FAA set the limits where they did, knowingly pulling in aircraft like that... but then truly, honestly 100% expected that the vast majority of new LSAs and most LSA flying would be the "fat ultralights".

It's the equivalent of posting a speed limit of 60 and honestly expecting that most traffic will do 45, not 70.

From the final Sport Pilot rule:

Just looking at the kitplane industry (at that time) should have given them a clue as to what would happen.  Plenty of kits for planes (with one or two seats inside the plane) that are lighter than a 150.

As I recall, some of them were developed after their designers made an attempt at developing a part 103 legal ultralight, then decided it was much easier to build something a little heavier and better performing.

I traded maintenance and inspections for flight time with a club once. They actually got the better end as most of the time I failed to fly off the 4 hours a month. They had a Beech Sundowner and Skipper. I'd look for a trade. I have been leary of most ultra lights I've come across. 1st rule of ultralights: Never fly higher than you're willing to fall.

Just looking at anything ever done with a performance limit (racing, airplanes, boats, etc) would have told them that going right up to the limit would be the norm, not the exception.  Any normal person with a brain and a pulse would know this.  But apparently in government-land, human nature doesn't exist...

Here we all are in 2017 and this dude is living in the year 3000. OP, you have an A&P. Trade wrenching for hours. Hell, if I had a traditional plane (I don't, I have a Pitts and a seaplane) I'd easily trade MX duties for using the plane. As it stands right now, my A&P has access to my Pitts, but he is also a CFI and the guy that checked me out in a Pitts.

You might be surprised how many aircraft owners lose all interest in that, when they find out you don't have an IA (can't sign off the annual with just an A&P).

14CFR Part 103 is a lot like concealed carry. If you're minding your own business and not attracting attention to yourself, you're not going to have any problems.