Question re towplane airworthiness (USA)

[Greg Arnold[_3_]]

I am posting the following for my local glider operation:

"Our Pawnee has two airworthiness certificates, one for normal flying
and one, restricted, for towing. When towing it is operated with
specific limitations spelled out on an operators handbook supplement.
Our tow pilot believes that our Scout should also have a second
airworthiness certificate for towing and refuses to tow with it until it
does. I need to find another operation that tows with a Scout and get
their take on it before I approach the FAA for a finding. My take on it
is that it left the factory with a provision for a tow hook so the
standard airworthiness certificate covers it."

Anyone have an answer to this?

[Frank Whiteley]

On Apr 19, 12:01*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> I am posting the following for my local glider operation:
>
> "Our Pawnee has two airworthiness certificates, one for normal flying
> and one, restricted, for towing. When towing it is operated with
> specific limitations spelled out on *an operators handbook supplement.
> Our tow pilot believes that our Scout should also have a second
> airworthiness certificate for towing and refuses to tow with it until it
> does. I need to find another operation that tows with a Scout and get
> their take on it before I approach the FAA for a finding. My take on it
> is that it left the factory with a provision for a tow hook so the
> standard airworthiness certificate covers it."
>
> Anyone have an answer to this?

Ask the factory
http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/
We no longer own one, but towed with a Scout for many years.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 19, 11:01*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> I am posting the following for my local glider operation:

> Anyone have an answer to this?

A search of the US registration database for Bellanca 8GCBC returned
most aircraft with standard/normal, one restricted/other, 3
restricted/agricultural. That was just in the first hundred found.

Significantly:
N181TM is registered to Coastal Soaring and is registed standard/
normal.
N2510Z is registed to Knauff and Grove and is registered standard/
normal.
N4208Y is registered to Scout Towing Company and is registered
standard/normal.

Even if one of these is the one your tow pilot doesn't want to fly,
there are at least 2 others out there that appear to be used for
towing on a standard cert.


Andy

[Brian[_1_]]

I think you are going about this the wrong way.

The rules are restrictive not permissive, In other words the FARs tell
you what you can't do, not what you can. They do sometimes tell you
how to do certain things.

So instead of trying to find out why you can tow with a Standard
Airworthiness certificate, you need to find out why your Tow Pilot,
FAA or any other entitity thinks you can not. And they need to show it
to you the FARs or Legal interpretations or something simliar.

I think the reason your Pawnee has two certificates is probably
because Towing is Prohibited on the Agricultural Restricted
Certificate. As a result in order to tow it needed a 2nd Airworthiness
certfiicate that does not have the Tow prohibition on it. Again this
is my guess and close look at the paperwork would be required to say
for sure.

American Champion sells Factory Tow hooks for Scouts so it would seem
odd that additional paperwork would be needed to tow with it, and they
would provide it if needed. In fact I believe the kit comes with the
required placards and I don't recall any additional paper work to be
carried in the airplane.

As a CFI I find it amazing how many rules pilots can quote to me that
don't exist.

Brian

[BT[_3_]]

Please Define.. Normal Flying.
Our Pawnee can only be certificated in the "Restricted" category.
With the changes to the Federal Register, we changed our "Restricted -
Agriculture" to Restricted - Glider and Banner Tow"
There are some serial numbers of Pawnees that can carry a "Normal" category
certificate and there are some serial numbers that can carry multiple
categories with different conditions of operation under each category.
FAA.GOV and check the Type Certificate Data Sheet.

I do not believe that the Scout requires another airworthy certificate to
conduct glider tow.
An operator would require FAA Approval and Endorsement to conduct banner tow
operations, but I have seen nothing that requires an aircraft with a NORMAL
or UTILITY Category certificate to also carry a "RESTRICTED - GLIDER TOW"
certificate.
I don't think the SCOUT has a "RESTRICTED" category approved on the Type
Certificate Data Sheet.

CAP tows with C-182s with no changes to the TCDS, just the Form 337 to
install the tow hook

BT

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
...
> I am posting the following for my local glider operation:
>
> "Our Pawnee has two airworthiness certificates, one for normal flying and
> one, restricted, for towing. When towing it is operated with specific
> limitations spelled out on an operators handbook supplement. Our tow
> pilot believes that our Scout should also have a second airworthiness
> certificate for towing and refuses to tow with it until it does. I need to
> find another operation that tows with a Scout and get their take on it
> before I approach the FAA for a finding. My take on it is that it left the
> factory with a provision for a tow hook so the standard airworthiness
> certificate covers it."
>
> Anyone have an answer to this?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 19, 3:16*pm, "BT" > wrote:
>I don't think the SCOUT has a "RESTRICTED" category approved on the Type
>Certificate Data Sheet.

There are certainly Bellanca 8GCBC (Scout) aircraft with "restricted"
airworthiness certificates. I found 3 restricted/agricultural in a
partial search. I don't believe the original TCDS changes if an STC
is issued subsequently.

I also checked on 2 PA-18-180 that I used to tow with. They were both
"restricted" but I believe that was because of the 180 hp engine
conversion not the use for towing. They were sold by the glider club
several years ago. I wanted to check how they were both registered
but both are now "normal" and have 150hp engines so that's
inconclusive.

I used to tow with an 8GCBC many years ago and do not remember that is
was "restricted". That aircraft is no longer registered so I can't
check on it.

If I were the OP I'd be calling Knauff and Grove for info on their
Scout, but maybe finding a different tow pilot would be less trouble.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 19, 3:16*pm, "BT" > wrote:

> I don't think the SCOUT has a "RESTRICTED" category approved on the Type
> Certificate Data Sheet.

TCDS A21CE Revision 13 American Champion
(Bellanca) (Champion)
8KCAB
8GCBC
October 14, 2004

Includes the following

II - Model 8GCBC, 2 PCLM-SM (Normal Category), Approved April 30, 1974
2 PCLM, (Restricted Category), Approved May 14, 1975

and

Maximum Weight Normal Category Landplane and Seaplane, (and Restricted
Category Ferry configuration): 2150 lbs.
Restricted Category (utilized for chemical dispensing operations):
2600 lbs.

This supports the finding that the Scout had a resticted airworthiness
cert for ag ops.

I suppose I only care because I used to tow with one.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 19, 4:52*pm, Andy > wrote:
> I suppose I only care because I used to tow with one.


But wait - there's more....

Note the bit on multiple airworthiness certs for ag ops - nothing
about glider towing

Certification Basis Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations dated
February 1, 1965, as amended
by 23-1 and 23-6 (Normal and Acrobatic Category); and
FAR 36, amended thru 39-24, for Model 8KCAB
FAR 36, amended thru 36-9, for Model 8GCBC.
FAR 36, amended thru 36-24, for Model 8GCBC with MT-Propeller.
Part 21.25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations dated February 1, 1965
(Restricted Category), for Model 8GCBC aircraft (S/N 129-75, 135-75
and up). S/N 129-75, 135-75 and up are eligible for Multiple
Airworthiness Certification in the Restricted Category when
agricultural spray equipment is installed per Bellanca Drawing 7-1492.

[Brian Whatcott]

Brian wrote:
> I think you are going about this the wrong way.
>
> The rules are restrictive not permissive, In other words the FARs tell
> you what you can't do, not what you can. //snip/
>
> Brian
>
>

Interesting sentiment. I've heard this said of other systems of rule-making:
1) Anything not expressly permitted, is prohibited.
Versus
2) Anything not expressly prohibited, is permitted.

I always thought that system 2) was more permissive, in some way.
And this is the FAR way, I think you are saying.
I never thought of the FARs as being permissive though. :-)

Brian W

[BT[_3_]]

I can understand the restricted category for ag ops for the Scout.. external
drag devices, heavy tanks and pumps added.

Many older Pawnees were flying tow with the restricted category for ag ops..
which means it can really only be used for ag ops, not anything else (ferry
flights for positioning, maintenance and pilot currency could be flown).
A few years ago the Federal Register addressed that and it was covered in
many SSA notices.
People exchanged their "ag ops" for "Restricted Glider and Banner Tow" for
the Pawnee.

I still do not think that a "Restricted" certificate is required to conduct
glider tow operations with an aircraft operating under a "standard"
airworthy certificate in the "Normal or Utility" category.

BT

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 19, 4:52 pm, Andy > wrote:
>> I suppose I only care because I used to tow with one.
>
>
> But wait - there's more....
>
> Note the bit on multiple airworthiness certs for ag ops - nothing
> about glider towing
>
> Certification Basis Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations dated
> February 1, 1965, as amended
> by 23-1 and 23-6 (Normal and Acrobatic Category); and
> FAR 36, amended thru 39-24, for Model 8KCAB
> FAR 36, amended thru 36-9, for Model 8GCBC.
> FAR 36, amended thru 36-24, for Model 8GCBC with MT-Propeller.
> Part 21.25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations dated February 1, 1965
> (Restricted Category), for Model 8GCBC aircraft (S/N 129-75, 135-75
> and up). S/N 129-75, 135-75 and up are eligible for Multiple
> Airworthiness Certification in the Restricted Category when
> agricultural spray equipment is installed per Bellanca Drawing 7-1492.
>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 19, 8:57*pm, "BT" > wrote:

> I still do not think that a "Restricted" certificate is required to conduct
> glider tow operations with an aircraft operating under a "standard"
> airworthy certificate in the "Normal or Utility" category.

Agree.

Andy

[Frank Whiteley]

On Apr 19, 9:25*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > I think you are going about this the wrong way.
>
> > The rules are restrictive not permissive, In other words the FARs tell
> > you what you can't do, not what you can. //snip/
>
> > Brian
>
> Interesting sentiment. I've heard this said of other systems of rule-making:
> 1) Anything not expressly permitted, is prohibited.
> Versus
> 2) Anything not expressly prohibited, is permitted.
>
> I always thought that system 2) was more permissive, in some way.
> And this is the FAR way, I think you are saying.
> I never thought of the FARs as being permissive though. :-)
>
> Brian W

1 is the German way. Let's not go there.
2 is the US way, which suits us fine, though we are still further
constrained by the underwriters, the IRS, and local issues.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:25 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>>> I think you are going about this the wrong way.
>>> The rules are restrictive not permissive, In other words the FARs tell
>>> you what you can't do, not what you can. //snip/
>>> Brian
>> Interesting sentiment. I've heard this said of other systems of rule-making:
>> 1) Anything not expressly permitted, is prohibited.
>> Versus
>> 2) Anything not expressly prohibited, is permitted.
>>
>> I always thought that system 2) was more permissive, in some way.
>> And this is the FAR way, I think you are saying.
>> I never thought of the FARs as being permissive though. :-)
>>
>> Brian W
>
> 1 is the German way. Let's not go there.
> 2 is the US way, which suits us fine, though we are still further
> constrained by the underwriters, the IRS, and local issues.

"What Brian C. (not Brian W.) and Frank W. said."

General Aviation -including soaring, of course -in the U.S. is close
enough as it is to being on life support without practitioners within it
jabbing needles willy-nilly into its twitching corpus for (really and
truly, to me) incomprehensible reasons.

Bob - shaking head sadly - W.