14 C.F.R. § 103.7
Certification and registration
(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.
(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.
(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1973–2002 · leading case: Don R. Ickes v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 299 F.3d 260 (3rd Cir. 2002).
Don R. Ickes v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 299 F.3d 260 (3rd Cir. 2002). “14 C.F.R. § 103.7 . 1 Iekes’ particular contention in this proceeding is that a two-seat “Challenger II” airplane that he has flown from his property for many years qualifies as an ultralight vehicle.”
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 543 F.2d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “14 C.F.R. § 103.7 (b)(6) (1976). . In the new FAA/DOT regulations “research” is defined as “investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery of new theories or laws, and the discovery and interpretation of facts or revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new…”
United States v. Ronald Lee Illingworth, 489 F.2d 264 (10th Cir. 1973). “See 14 C.F.R. § 103.7 (1973); Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v.”
United States v. Petrykievicz, 809 F. Supp. 794 (W.D. Wash. 1992). “it is clear that the dynamite which Illingworth carried with him on the planes was not only regulated, but also excluded from the range of “acceptable” explosives that, in certain circumstances, could be carried on board passenger-carrying aircraft, by 14 C.”
United States v. Red Frame Parasail, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Ariz. 2001). “14 C.F.R. § 103.7 . The exemptions, however, do not indicate that “Congress has essentially opted out of the federal regulation of ultralights, their pilots and their use.”
Town of New Paltz v. Ale, 102 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). “Special Term further noted that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulated ultralights, although exempting them from licensing, registration and airworthiness certification requirements (14 CFR 103.7); that these regulations did not exceed the FAA’s authority and were…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.