Originally published at: FAA Weighs Ultralight Access Dispute At California Airport
Ultralight pilots said local restrictions effectively shut them out of the airport.
Maybe if the ultralight community in general had not EARNED a reputation as cowboys and pirates, as anarchists of the air, and accumulated a horrific accident record from careless construction and reckless operation they would be welcomed rather than scrutinized and, perhaps, unevenly restricted. This casual undisciplined UL ethos including mocking, disrespect for regulationshas unfortunately now been allowed to pollute and dumb down the sport pilot community by crediting UL hours and welcoming UL “instructors” as near equals which will ultimately adversely impact that sector’s safety record and on up the chain.
Ahh yes…the wooden shoes of aviation. Is it still a thing?
So, flying machines of all types should have a place to fly, as long as everyone follows the rules.
Freedom is whats at risk here! Freedom is the right to be stupid the right to break the rules etc… The consequences of abusing freedom is what should be regulated.
Well, it is all about risk. The higher the risk, the greater the cost for the airport operator. If you want to keep costs down and play with the big boys, stricter regulation of “pilots” needs to be implemented. Airworthiness standards also need to be tightened up. The North American safety record is inferior to that of countries that have implemented stricter, more far-reaching regulations. Stricter pilot certification and enforced regulations governing design and construction of ultralight aircraft would improve the safety record of the sport.
It has been over 20 years, but I have been to Yuba County Airport and believe it is still not that busy. Or, the airport operators are trying to squeeze everyone for more funds. With past FAA funding, the airport should get their hands slapped, thank you very much! Ultralights everywhere and forever!!! Because autos are trash. Figuratively, step on 2D people everywhere you can!!! Help get rid of the lazy asses!!! Not wanting to fly and relieve the over crowded freeways!!! I-80 in and around Sacramento is a traffic jam travesty!!! Ugly people living in ugly conditions! And no reason for it!
On one hand, the Airport is expected to allow an aeronautical device to operate. On the other hand, the FAA does not allow most ultralights to be listed on the based aircraft inventory because they don’t have tail numbers. So, when airports are being inundated with ultralights that cannot be added to their based inventory, they lose out on federal funding because it is in part determined from how many based aircraft that airport has. This is especially relevant when renting t-hangars. I cannot tell an ultralight no (based on loose FAA guidance) but get no benefit from renting to them. It is a problem that the FAA needs to recognize.
The article neglects to mention the Petition against ultralights due to safety and FAA’s own regulations, already signed by over 70 people within a couple of weeks, many of whom are life flight helicopter pilots or retired military. Most like ultralights but Ultralights at Yuba County Airport is TOO dangerous. One UL ended up crashing into the fence. Another UL hung upside down for hours after getting caught in the electric lines. At least 5 incidents of near misses - almost fatal, almost like the military helicopter and commercial airline in DC.
The letter from EAA was prompted by misinformation from one person saying he represented the Yuba County EAA chapter. He did not. That same individual has been seen taxiing his UL all over the airport in a crazy, dangerous, childish manner.
If you’d like to sign the Petition, please email editor@chuckyeager.com
I have an aircraft based at KMYV, and the proposed UL routes have them cross rwy 14 1,000 ft from the approach end at 500 ft or below, well within a normal approach altitude.
The other transition is crazy, crossing mid-field at 500 ft or below, in direct conflict with departing aircraft.
This plan will just about guarantee an accident/ crash.
The FAA has sole authority to make safety determinations. AFS-830 has performed a formal safety analysis and determined that ultralights may operate safely at the Yuba County airport. The FAA has approved a dedicated ultralight operating area on an abandoned corner of the airport, and an ultralight pattern that maintains adequate separation.
Ms. Yeagers opinions about safety appear to conflict with formal FAA findings and her proposal to ban ultralights is discrimination under FAA grant assurance 22.
Yuba County may discipline or ban reckless individuals. However, grant assurances prohibit a blanket ban without a valid safety reason and prior FAA authorization.
Many safe and experienced aviators were affected by the recent ultralight ban. For example, I hold an aerospace engineering degree and FAA ratings in airplanes, gliders, and UAS. The County even agreed that ultralights pose little risk when operated by licensed pilots, but refused to restore access for licensed pilots.
Yuba County also discriminates against gliders and light sport aircraft; FAA registered aircraft operated by FAA-licensed pilots. For example, it is a mis-demeanor crime under County ordinance to land a glider without prior authorization from the airport manager, punishable by fines and imprisonment. Accordingly, a glider pilot may be tempted to choose a less safe landing option, which is not acceptable. This will also be addressed by the ongoing Part 16 case.
No matter what you fly, your rights at publicly funded airports are not dictated by petitions or airport managers. FAA grant assurances protect our rights, and the FAA has sole authority over safety restrictions. This case seeks to stop airports from violating federal grant assurances, ignoring FAA directives, and banning aeronautical users without FAA authorization.
The airport has intersecting runways so most airplanes cross a runway with each takeoff and landing, and often at the same altitude.
There is no approved ultralight flight path off the end of the runway as you described. That idea was cut very early in the FAA’s review process. However, County officials continued to present it publicly because they were not up to date on the issue. Unfortunately, this has resulted in some misunderstandings.
AFS-830 conducted a safety analysis based on actual aircraft tracking data. They identified a specific crossing point and altitude that provides maximum separation. Furthermore, ultralights are required to yield to other traffic and will not cross while there is traffic using the paved runway.
The ultralight community actually submitted a proposal to operate on the west side of the airport to avoid this crossing all together, but the County opposed it.
In my experience, around half of ultralight operators are licensed pilots. For example, I have an aerospace engineering degree and FAA ratings in airplanes, gliders, and UAS.
Almost every paraglider and paramotor is now certified by a third party (DHV) to an internation standard (European Committee for Standardization (EN 926).
SB, Thanks for the info. We’ll all wait to see the final approvals. Hopefully all the aircraft using the airport will use the ctaf to announce their position and intentions, even though comms are not required.
Hi Jim,
I personally fly my paramotor with a radio and strobes. Although the County may not require radios, they can encourage them through public outreach. I’ve communicated with the local FAAST team and they willing to host presentations on radio use and ultralight safety. With any luck, we can also get more of the local Cub drivers to use radios.
Overall, the new ultralight operating area and FAA-approved procedures will improve safety. For more than a decade, ultralights operated from an area just outside the fence, with little supervision or enforcement. Around 2014, the FAA and Grand Jury recommended they move ultralights to a safer location on the airport, but the Board of Supervisors refused, citing a longstanding policy prohibiting ultralights from “actual airport property.” Ironically, keeping ultralights outside the fence forced them into closer proximity to other aircraft, and reduced accountability. Going forward, it will be easy to identify reckless individuals by their gate card logs, and to remove access for bad actors.
I also hope the FAA will consider allowing Part 103 ultralights to broadcast ADS-B out. In many countries, ultralight and microlight operators are allowed to use portable low-power ADS-B out devices, like UAVIONICS Sky Echo. It is crazy that this commercially available technology is prohibited in the US, particularly as the FAA considers giving UAS right of way over non-ADS-B aircraft.
Spoken like a pilot of REAL airplanes, right?? Though I haven’t flown UL’s since ‘87, I did for 5 years before that, and as a “real” pilot since, I still feel the need to stick up for the UL faction. Point being, like me, many transition into larger aircraft, get their sh*t more together, and generally help maintain GenAv. When someone asks how many hours I have, you can bet I include not only my UL time (576), but my hang glider time before that (267) not just the time I’ve flown since getting my ticket (4874). They all got me high enough to kill me if I screwed up. All accident free BTW, well at least injury free, You sound like the kind of pilot who declares final 3 miles out, and God forbid someone dares take the active, takes off in 150’, and is at pattern altitude while you’re still a mile out.
David Shelton, who allegedly posts/hides under the handle sbaircraft, is a central figure in an ongoing dispute with Yuba County. According to his FAA license, Dave Shelton lives several hours away from Yuba County Airport. It appears Shelton is allegedly using this situation as a self-serving case study to force all airports to permit ultralights, regardless of local safety conditions, in an attempt to build his own reputation.
Shelton’s reporting has been widely characterized as inaccurate. He holds himself as the representative of the UL community & he told the rest of us he told the UL community not to show up to a meeting of the Yuba County aviation community. So he controls the information flow to the UL community - all they know is what he tells them. He has also allegedly had private communications with the FAA and has not told them the truth either. (He has told the aviation community what he has said.)
Furthermore, there is significant speculation regarding the true identity of individuals like “simkot,” who claims to be injury-free (but not accident-free) but may have limited flight experience outside of ultralights over the last 18 years.
If simkot is Dave Juul. it should be noted that he has a history of erratic behavior at the airport, including dangerous taxiing maneuvers performed as a protest against safety regulations.
Almost all (still getting signatures for the Petition against ULs at Yuba County Airport) of local pilots and stakeholders agree that Yuba County Airport—which services high-speed jets and critical life-saving helicopters including other aircraft that fly much faster than ULs—is not a safe environment for ultralights. The speed differentials and operational requirements of these aircraft make finding a “safe place” for ultralights impossible.
One of the groups supporting Shelton was previously removed from other safer non-public airstrips or fields due to behavioral issues.
I stand by my original assessment: the current push for ultralight access at Yuba County Airport compromises safety and ignores the practical realities of modern aviation.
I have spoken with several UL pilots who agree that ULs should NOT be flying at Yuba County Airport where jets, life-saving helicopters, (and other airplanes that land much faster than the ULs fly) fly: All of whom think there is no safe place on Yuba County Airport for ULs.
It should be noted that those against ULs at Yuba County Airport, are not against ULs in safe environments & whose pilots act responsibly.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.