PDA

View Full Version : Re: FAA


Judy Ruprecht
August 11th 03, 04:20 AM
At 18:06 10 August 2003, Nolaminar wrote:
>Has anyone ever experienced an FAA Ramp Check when
>involved with soaring?
> Any such experience at a meet or competiotion.

Yup. 15-Meter Nationals at Tonopah. One pilot randomly
selected by the inspector was asked to pull out of
the take-off line until the crew could return with
the guy's pilot certificate, which had been left at
the hotel 'for safekeeping.'

Judy

Jay Todd
August 13th 03, 03:32 PM
(MKEENE221) wrote in message >...
> >One pilot randomly
> >selected by the inspector was asked to pull out of
> >the take-off line until the crew could return with
> >the guy's pilot certificate, which had been left at
> >the hotel 'for safekeeping.'
> >
>
> Which prompts me to remind you that all you must show during a ramp check is
> your pilot certificate and medical, if appropriate. No glider paperwork, no
> logbooks, nada. They'll take anything you want to give them, but only the
> above mentioned items are required. Be polite of course, because they're just
> doing their job.
>
> The local FSDO guys used to do ramp checks at Littlefield during contests.
>
> Mark

Close but not wholly correct. During a ramp check the inspector can
ask to see your pilots license and medical (if appropriate) as well as
any paperwork that is required to be in the aircraft ie; airworthiness
certificate, registration, weight & balance, POH etc. You are correct
that log books and other paperwork do not need to be produced at that
time even if they are available. You can request that the inspector
send you a letter outlining any other papers, logs etc. that (s)he
wants to see and to make an appointment to do so. Being polite as you
said, is always the best approch.

Jay
3D

F.L. Whiteley
August 13th 03, 09:17 PM
"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> The FAA recently came by to inspect our rental PA-28-181 Archer.
> We asked for ID, the two inspectors provided it, and they
> went through the books and papers and placards.
>
> The only deficiency was a missing "compass correction card."
> We called the owner, and he described where it was (on the
> panel, not below the compass). That was it, and they left.
>
> A week later the FAA sent us a letter saying the plane had
> passed just fine and thanking us for being cooperative.
>
> I wonder how a 2-33 would fare in the same inspection.
> The only required equipment at the time of manufacture
> was an ASI (if one believes the dog-eared POH). But the
> part 91 VFR rules currently want an altimeter and
> compass as well.
>
> I must say I would be a bit taken aback if I was
> in line for launch and was pulled off the line for a
> missing compass correction card.
>
>
> Mark Boyd
>
>
>
> TRIVIA TO FOLLOW
>
> P.S. The Taylorcraft BC-12D was certified for IFR flight
> using only needle, ball, and airspeed (see the POH).
> But current part 91 IFR rules obviously require more.
>
> Some gliders also say "cloud flying permitted" in
> the POH. I'd consider it a no-no, but I suppose
> a very rich person could install the part 91 required
> equipment to make a glider IFR. I've gotten blocks
> of airspace and altitude before in a power plane,
> so maybe this could be done legally, but what a hassle!
> I suspect there are quite a few glider pilots that
> cloud fly occasionally well away from airways and
> airspace. I have heard of one midair between two
> gliders in the clouds, however, where both circled in
> a thermal. Ouch!
>
>
There have been some IFR equipped gliders (IIRC, Carl Herold's old Nimbus
was so equipped and flown under IFR frequently. Don't know if his newer one
is so equipped). WRT the collision, perhaps you are referring to the
mid-air in cloud at the World's in the former Yugoslavia, though there may
be others.

Having flown in clouds in the UK in both thermal and wave, I found it both
an interesting and exciting aspect of soaring. FWIW, when the UK pilots fly
comps on the Continent, they have to remove their Bohli compasses, in
addition to any horizon and T/S.

Frank Whiteley

Mark James Boyd
August 13th 03, 09:19 PM
The FAA recently came by to inspect our rental PA-28-181 Archer.
We asked for ID, the two inspectors provided it, and they
went through the books and papers and placards.

The only deficiency was a missing "compass correction card."
We called the owner, and he described where it was (on the
panel, not below the compass). That was it, and they left.

A week later the FAA sent us a letter saying the plane had
passed just fine and thanking us for being cooperative.

I wonder how a 2-33 would fare in the same inspection.
The only required equipment at the time of manufacture
was an ASI (if one believes the dog-eared POH). But the
part 91 VFR rules currently want an altimeter and
compass as well.

I must say I would be a bit taken aback if I was
in line for launch and was pulled off the line for a
missing compass correction card.


Mark Boyd



TRIVIA TO FOLLOW

P.S. The Taylorcraft BC-12D was certified for IFR flight
using only needle, ball, and airspeed (see the POH).
But current part 91 IFR rules obviously require more.

Some gliders also say "cloud flying permitted" in
the POH. I'd consider it a no-no, but I suppose
a very rich person could install the part 91 required
equipment to make a glider IFR. I've gotten blocks
of airspace and altitude before in a power plane,
so maybe this could be done legally, but what a hassle!
I suspect there are quite a few glider pilots that
cloud fly occasionally well away from airways and
airspace. I have heard of one midair between two
gliders in the clouds, however, where both circled in
a thermal. Ouch!

Stefan
August 13th 03, 10:10 PM
"F.L. Whiteley" wrote:
>
> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Some gliders also say "cloud flying permitted" in
> > the POH. I'd consider it a no-no, but I suppose
> > a very rich person could install the part 91 required
> > equipment to make a glider IFR.

Cloud flying is forbidden in the USA, however, it's allowed in many
European countries. The procedures vary from country to country.

> Having flown in clouds in the UK in both thermal and wave, I found it both
> an interesting and exciting aspect of soaring. FWIW, when the UK pilots fly
> comps on the Continent, they have to remove their Bohli compasses, in
> addition to any horizon and T/S.

In contests, cloud flying is generally forbidden. To enforce this, the
horizon and the needle (but not the compass) must be removed or covered
and sealed. The reason is that in contests, pilots would routinely
violate separation rules, resulting in midairs.

Stefan

Rich Carr
August 13th 03, 10:50 PM
> I wonder how a 2-33 would fare in the same inspection.
> The only required equipment at the time of manufacture
> was an ASI (if one believes the dog-eared POH). But the
> part 91 VFR rules currently want an altimeter and
> compass as well.

Not true.

- Rich Carr

Mark James Boyd
August 14th 03, 09:28 AM
>> I wonder how a 2-33 would fare in the same inspection.
>> The only required equipment at the time of manufacture
>> was an ASI (if one believes the dog-eared POH). But the
>> part 91 VFR rules currently want an altimeter and
>> compass as well.

>Not true.

From page 1-2 of the Schweizer 2-33 sailplane flight-erection-maintenance
manual, form F-114 (General Description section):

"6. Instruments:
Front only - ASI is required. Additional instruments may be
added, up to a full panel, as desired.
NOTE: Instrument flight is prohibited, regardless of instrumentation."

From 91.205
"powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificate"

Aha! The VFR requirements apply to POWERED aircraft.

I stand corrected. Like the ELT, I am fortunate that someone
has forced me to consult the regs carefully... Thank you...


Mark Boyd

mm
August 14th 03, 03:03 PM
"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Stefan <"stefan"@mus. INVALID .ch> wrote
> > Cloud flying is forbidden in the USA
>
> This is not correct. Cloud flying is permitted in the USA, in
> controlled airspace on an IFR flight plan or in uncontrolled airspace
> with no flight plan. There's not much uncontrolled airspace suitable
> for cloud flying, though. There are pilot certification and recency
> of experience requirements in Part 61.

More explicitly, an Instrument Rating is required for the pilot.

Shaber CJ
August 14th 03, 03:31 PM
>I have had one-on-one discussions with ATC supervisors about the
>possibilities of cloud flights and came away with the impression that they
>(ATC) would do all they could to make such flights possible - if you played
>by their rules.

Not very likely to be able to follow ATC's rules. You have to be on an
instrument flight plan and ATC would expect you to hold heading and altitude.
You also would have to be transponder equiped. ATC will work with you and it
is possible to educate them of your needs but they are not used to gliders and
if other traffic is in the area ATC is not likely to let you not hold heading
and alt.

Bill Daniels
August 14th 03, 04:10 PM
"Shaber CJ" > wrote in message
...
> >I have had one-on-one discussions with ATC supervisors about the
> >possibilities of cloud flights and came away with the impression that
they
> >(ATC) would do all they could to make such flights possible - if you
played
> >by their rules.
>
> Not very likely to be able to follow ATC's rules. You have to be on an
> instrument flight plan and ATC would expect you to hold heading and
altitude.
> You also would have to be transponder equiped. ATC will work with you and
it
> is possible to educate them of your needs but they are not used to gliders
and
> if other traffic is in the area ATC is not likely to let you not hold
heading
> and alt.

Actually, creative use of "cruise" clearances which allow altitude changes
within an assigned altitude band and course deviations for "weather" can
allow a glider pilot almost total freedom within the ATC system. A variant
of the cruise clearance is "climb while holding" which permits a climb in
cloud with guaranteed separation from all other traffic.

It all depends on your relationship with the ATC facility. IFR flights are
not as rigidly controlled as it would seem from the first reading of the FAA
"Instrument Flying Handbook". There are areas of the USA where IFR traffic
is very sparse and consequently, controllers get very bored. Some of them
look at handling gliders as a welcome diversion.

Even so, it takes a very skilled and disciplined pilot to make all this
work - and, yes, you need a Mode C transponder in addition to all the other
IFR goodies.

Bill Daniels

John Morgan
August 14th 03, 04:39 PM
"mm" > wrote in message ...
> More explicitly, an Instrument Rating is required for the pilot.
>


And maybe less explicitly, the glider must be certified for IFR flight. Some
gliders say VFR only in the POH. As others mentioned, additional
instrumentation is required, two gyros - - an artificial horizon, turn
coordinator (or needle and ball), transponder and encoder that are IFR
certified etc.

All that said, if you ask ATC for block altitude to go up in Class A
airspace or get sucked into a cloud, they are not gonna ask you to itemize
the equipment in your glider or be waiting when you land . . . normally (g).
--
bumper >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003

Michael
August 14th 03, 06:31 PM
"mm" > wrote
> More explicitly, an Instrument Rating is required for the pilot.

Well, that's part of it. Of course there is no glider instrument
rating, so an airplane instrument rating is required.

Also, the recency of experience requirements are insteresting. They
are different for solo and passenger-carrying flights.

Worth a read.

Michael

Mark James Boyd
August 14th 03, 09:14 PM
Yes, the 91.205 required equipment is specific
for "powered aircraft"

But the 61.57 IFR recency requirements are pretty
demanding. 3 hours of glider instrument flight experience
in the past 6 months? Better buy your safety pilot
a nice dinner...

>There's not much uncontrolled airspace suitable
>for cloud flying, though. There are pilot certification and recency
>of experience requirements in Part 61.

the word "much" is relative. G airspace goes quite high
near Reno in some areas. Anywhere ATC cannot get a reliable
altimeter reading, the G airspace may go into the low
teens. These "fences" of airspace are likely candidates
for this kind of flying. I'm guessing this is where
Carl Herold did his IFR flying...

This has been a VERY enlightening discussion...

Shaber CJ
August 15th 03, 04:39 AM
>Subject: Re: FAA
>From:
>Date: 8/14/2003 7:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Craig,
>
>Its been a long time since I've done any power flying but I can tell you
>that the folks at LA center have been great about providing VFR flight
>following when flying between the border and the Mojave wth a mode c
>transponder. They seem to get quite a kick out of "working" a glider.
>Granted most of my experience with this over the past 13 years with a
>transponder has been in pretty good VFR conditions so they might not be at
>max workload. I have also had great cooperation on clearances above 18K in
>wave conditions. Now this is in VFR conditions and I am instrument rated...
Hi Bob:

I am sure there are exception to my experience, however VFR flight following is
not like working IFR traffic. Hey just a thought, since you have not been
flying power how do you keep your IFR currency, and is it really a valid ticket
at this point?

How do you like the ASW-22? I hope to see that bird in the air someday. I
heard Al did a nice job of refinishing her.

Cheers

Craig

ADP
August 18th 03, 06:17 AM
Well, not quite. Motor Gliders are NOT considered powered aircraft. They
don't need a transponder or an ELT. They are subject to the same rules as
any glider.
You can not take off and fly a Motor Glider with a power rating (unless you
also have a glider rating and a self launch endorsement.)
There are no minimum equipment rules for Motor Gliders except those it was
certified with.

Bear in mind that there is a difference between IFR and IMC. In
uncontrolled airspace, no ATC clearance or flight plan is required to fly
IMC. However, as was pointed out below, both the glider and pilot must be
qualified and current for flight in IMC. And yes folks, you can be current
for IMC in a glider.

Watch out for those clouds!

Allan


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Stefan <"stefan"@mus. INVALID .ch> wrote
> > Cloud flying is forbidden in the USA
>
> This is not correct. Cloud flying is permitted in the USA, in
> controlled airspace on an IFR flight plan or in uncontrolled airspace
> with no flight plan. There's not much uncontrolled airspace suitable
> for cloud flying, though. There are pilot certification and recency
> of experience requirements in Part 61.
>
> For motorgliders, which are considered powered aircraft, there are
> also minimum equipment rules in 91.205. These do not apply to pure
> gliders. As long as the AFM/POH does not prohibit cloud flying,
> you're good to go.
>
> Michael

Bill Daniels
August 18th 03, 05:54 PM
"Judy Ruprecht" > wrote in message
...
> At 06:12 18 August 2003, Adp wrote:
> >Well, not quite. Motor Gliders are NOT considered
> >powered aircraft.
>
> Beg to differ. No aircraft FAA-categorized as a glider
> is an 'airplane,' but a motorglider IS a powered aircraft
> FAA-categorized as a glider. In general, then...
>
> .. the ELT requirements of 91.207 are inapplicable
> to all aircraft categorized as gliders
> .. the transponder exclusions of 91.215(b)(3) and
> (5) apply to all aircraft categorized as gliders
> .. the instrumentation requirements of 91.205(b)(1)-(10),
> (12) & (13) for VFR flight, 91.205(c) for night flight
> and 91.205(d) and (e) for IFR flight apply to motorgliders.
>
> There are also instances when other equipment and/or
> instrumentation requirements apply or operations may
> be limited to Day VFR only...
>
> .. in the case of any glider certificated in the Standard
> Airworthiness category, when specified by the TCDS
> and/or POH based on it
> .. in the case of any glider certificated in the Experimental
> airworthiness category, when specified the POH and/or
> FAA-issued Operating Limitations
> .. when specified under the terms of a Letter of Agreement,
> authorization or deviation issued (for example) per
> 91.126 - 91.145 inclusive or 91.215(d)
>
> >Bear in mind that there is a difference between IFR
> >and IMC.
>
> Yes, there is. But 61.57(c) recent experience requirements,
> 91.205(d) and (e) instrumentation requirements and
> 91.173 flight plan requirements list prerequisites
> to flight under IFR, which includes instances when
> VMC prevails. This is - uhm - awkward, since none of
> these sections makes a clear provision for exceptions/deviations.
> Still, 'Wave window' Letters of Agreement granted per
> 91.135(d) and 91.215(d) will typically provide for
> flights conducted in VMC, under VFR by non-instrument
> rated glider pilots.
>
> Aren't FARs fun?
>
> Judy
>
Judy, thanks for your expertise. It's always helpful.

A several years ago, I spoke with a supervisor of Denver Center. The
purpose of the call was to ensure that an old LOA for one of the many
Colorado "Wave Windows" was still valid.

In the conversation, I decided to explore the possibilities a bit further.
I started with a simple request, "assume that all FAR Part 61 and 91 IFR
requirements are met, including a Mode C transponder", "would you be
inclined to look favorably on an in-flight request for a course deviation
that would allow a glider under your control to traverse from one wave
window to another." I gave an example of two windows that were adjacent,
but not touching.

His response took me a bit aback. He said, "given those conditions, subject
to workload and conflicting traffic, we would probably approve anything you
wanted." He continued with observations and suggestions that revealed a
considerable knowledge of glider operations and limitations and that he was
very comfortable with them. With full understanding of the inability of a
glider to hold an assigned altitude, he was prepared to treat glider flight
under IFR just like any other aircraft. He did add that, before this
hypothetical flight, a visit to Denver Center for some face-to-face time
would be helpful.

Sometimes, you get a real warm feeling working with one of our Civil
Servants.

Bill Daniels

ADP
August 18th 03, 09:09 PM
Todd,
It is NOT a powered Aircraft, civil or otherwise, it is a glider. The power
portion is irrelevant. Thus all rules applied to gliders apply to Motor
Gliders and not one rule more!
Look at any Airworthiness certificate for a Motor Glider it is a GLIDER with
a motor. Your understanding is incorrect. Any 14 CFR Part that applies to
Airplanes does not apply to ANY glider, whether or not is has a motor.

Don't limit your options by assuming regulations which do not apply to Motor
GLIDERS.

I base the minimum equipment rules on the fact that there are many gliders
flying today that do not meet minimum VFR requirements. They are not
applicable to GLIDERS! Look at any glider POH or placards, this is the MEL
for a glider. It is irrelevant who the certificating authority is. Your
Airworthiness certificate will have the operating requirements.

Allan

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "ADP" > wrote:
>
> >Well, not quite. Motor Gliders are NOT considered powered aircraft.
>
> Gliders are "aircraft" and motorgliders are "powered." It's
> my understanding that any FAR that uses the term "powered
> aircraft" applies to both motorgliders and airplanes. Any
> FAR that uses the term "airplane" does not apply to
> motorgliders.
>
> >They
> >don't need a transponder or an ELT. They are subject to the same rules
as
> >any glider.
>
> This is true, because the applicable FAR's for transponders
> and ELT (91.207) use the term "airplane." However, the
> minimum equipment rules in 91.205 use the term "powered
> aircraft"
>
> 91.205:"no person may operate a powered civil aircraft"
> 91.207: "no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil
> airplane"
>
> >You can not take off and fly a Motor Glider with a power rating (unless
you
> >also have a glider rating and a self launch endorsement.)
>
> True.
>
> >There are no minimum equipment rules for Motor Gliders except those it
was
> >certified with.
>
> What do you base this on?
>
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

ADP
August 18th 03, 09:32 PM
A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a motor.
You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER.
No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider. Let
me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is NOT
a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER!

Allan


"Judy Ruprecht" > wrote in message
...
> At 06:12 18 August 2003, Adp wrote:
> >Well, not quite. Motor Gliders are NOT considered
> >powered aircraft.
>
> Beg to differ. No aircraft FAA-categorized as a glider
> is an 'airplane,' but a motorglider IS a powered aircraft
> FAA-categorized as a glider. In general, then...
>
> .. the ELT requirements of 91.207 are inapplicable
> to all aircraft categorized as gliders
> .. the transponder exclusions of 91.215(b)(3) and
> (5) apply to all aircraft categorized as gliders
> .. the instrumentation requirements of 91.205(b)(1)-(10),
> (12) & (13) for VFR flight, 91.205(c) for night flight
> and 91.205(d) and (e) for IFR flight apply to motorgliders.
>
> There are also instances when other equipment and/or
> instrumentation requirements apply or operations may
> be limited to Day VFR only...
>
> .. in the case of any glider certificated in the Standard
> Airworthiness category, when specified by the TCDS
> and/or POH based on it
> .. in the case of any glider certificated in the Experimental
> airworthiness category, when specified the POH and/or
> FAA-issued Operating Limitations
> .. when specified under the terms of a Letter of Agreement,
> authorization or deviation issued (for example) per
> 91.126 - 91.145 inclusive or 91.215(d)
>
> >Bear in mind that there is a difference between IFR
> >and IMC.
>
> Yes, there is. But 61.57(c) recent experience requirements,
> 91.205(d) and (e) instrumentation requirements and
> 91.173 flight plan requirements list prerequisites
> to flight under IFR, which includes instances when
> VMC prevails. This is - uhm - awkward, since none of
> these sections makes a clear provision for exceptions/deviations.
> Still, 'Wave window' Letters of Agreement granted per
> 91.135(d) and 91.215(d) will typically provide for
> flights conducted in VMC, under VFR by non-instrument
> rated glider pilots.
>
> Aren't FARs fun?
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>
>

xtra
August 19th 03, 12:42 AM
How about this one? Pilot has private glider air launch.
Takes dual in power plane, is endorsed to solo.

Student rules do not apply. He no longer has a student
certificate and is not bound by rules specific to students.

As I would intrepret this, he would be totally legal to take
the power plane on a 2000 mile trip, go into any alphabet
soup controlled space, except where an instrument rating
is required, with no endorsements. BUT he can not
fly a motor glider around the field.



>91.205:"no person may operate a powered civil aircraft"
>91.207: "no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil
>airplane"
>
>>You can not take off and fly a Motor Glider with a power rating (unless you
>>also have a glider rating and a self launch endorsement.)
>
>True.
>

>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Mark James Boyd
August 19th 03, 02:20 AM
61.31(d) is fairly clear on this. If you are gonna be PIC,
you either

(1) have category and class on your pilot cert or
(2) under CFI supervision and receiving training or
(3) have the training and required solo endorsements

if you tell the inspector that caught you 2000 miles from home
that (2) or (3) is the case, he'll want to see proof.
When you show him the section your CFI signed, and the
section numbers, if you don't have all the endorsements
(including the correct section), you're outa luck.

And notice that the sections and numbers differ. If you
got solo X-C qualified in a glider, the instructor endorsement
was 61.93(j). Doesn't make you X-C qualified for power (61.93(e)).

61.31(d) gives exception (k) for experimentals, meaning
(d)(1) doesn't apply if you fly an rv-6, but (k) doesn't
except endorsement requirements for tailwheel or
self-launch or complex, etc.

If you say you aren't under (1), then under (2) or (3)
you're going to need something in writing better than
"Billy Bob CFI told me verbally it was ok."

There is this little matter of controlled airspace, however.
Kind of like the 11 year old driving the chevy around the
private farm, does the CFR apply to G airspace? Dunno.
If the farmer flies below 1200AGL over his own property,
is that ok? How about an unlicensed pilot hovering
a helicopter inside his hangar?

OK, getting a little extreme here ;) But if you willy nilly
about without category and class or "supervision", and you
get into an accident,
joo gasuummm splainin' to do, Lucy!

Robertmudd1u
August 19th 03, 03:05 PM
In article >, "ADP" >
writes:

>A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a motor.
>You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER.
>No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider. Let
>me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is NOT
>a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER!
>Allan


Allan,

Judy is the recognized expert on the FAR in this news group. When you go up
against her about the FARs you need to reference your opinion or you have no
validity.

Judy always refers to the correct FAR to back up her statements. You should
too. What is your reference for such a strong statement?

According to my copy of FAR 1.1 General Definitions, both a glider an airplane
would be considered aircraft because they are both, "...intended to be used for
flight in the air."

Robert Mudd

Judy Ruprecht
August 19th 03, 05:15 PM
At 21:18 18 August 2003, Adp wrote:

>I base the minimum equipment rules on the fact that
>there are >many gliders flying today that do not meet
>minimum VFR >requirements (of US FAR 91.205) They are
>not
>applicable to GLIDERS!

Geez, Louise! By this rationale, VFR cloud clearances
don't exist because everybody talks about being 'right
there at cloudbase.'

>Look at any glider POH or placards, this is the MEL
>for a glider. It is irrelevant who the certificating
>authority is. >Your Airworthiness certificate will have
>the operating >requirements.

Egad, we're about to digress into 91.213 on the topic
of approved MELs, but I'll do as I'm told...

Am looking at the POH for my glider - a 1981 ASW-20.
Minimum Equipment list: ASI, altimeter and a 4-part
Safety Harness. Additional equipment for cloud flying:
a turn & bank, compass and VHF Transceiver. (A total
aside to this discussion: the POH specifies make &
model for each item. Some are no longer in production.)

Incorporated into this glider's Experimental Airworthiness
certificate is an Operating Limitations page - a boilerplate
form issued by a west coast FAA office; it limits US
ops to Day VFR only, with instrumentation as listed
in FAR 91.205.

You see, 91.205 - on the face of it - applies to powered
aircraft including motorgliders certificated in the
standard airworthiness category; depending on FAA-issued
operating limitations, however, these and/or other
instrumentation/equipment requirements may also apply
to an individual aircraft issued an Experimental airworthiness
certificate.

>Let me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER
>with >a Motor and is NOT a powered aircraft. Write
>it 1000 times, a >motor glider is a GLIDER!

You can say it 'till you're blue in the face, if you
want. We already agree that in terms of aircraft category,
a motorglider is a GLIDER. (Why are we shouting?) What
you steadfastly refuse to believe is that in terms
of 91.205 applicability, (1) a motorglider is also
a 'powered aircraft' and (2) in certain instances,
91.205 can apply to an Experimental glider with or
without a motor.

Judy

ADP
August 19th 03, 06:59 PM
Ok, let's talk about this rationally. The CFR 14 parts are interpreted
every day by so-called experts
and they haven't the slightest clue about the meaning and intent of these
rules.
The aviation rules encompassed by CFR Title 14 were initially written to be
permissive.
That is, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by regulation, then it was
assumed to be allowable.
This attitude has been somewhat modified by our all knowing government but
it is still extant.

Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a
powered aircraft, by definition.
By definition, a powered aircraft is one that has an engine that operates
continuously from take off
to touchdown. Even though your motor glider can do this, it is not required
to. Finding this information
is akin to reading the Federalist Papers to discern what the founding
fathers meant. But, it can be done.

Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover,
there are no FARs,
no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is
only the
Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14 has
parts with which you
are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the aviation
population is unaware of this.

There are many Motor Gliders flying around with uncertified engines, by
regulation, no powered aircraft can do so.
I'll let Judy look up the appropriate reg. With no powered aircraft may
you, for example, remove the wings, de or re-rig it.
You may do so with your motor glider. With sustainer engines the engine is
not even a required piece of equipment.
How do you reconcile this with powered aircraft requirements?

The rules that specify powered aircraft were written for continuously
operating engines. For example,
in a motor glider you are not required to arrive anywhere with any fuel
reserves or any fuel at all!
How do you reconcile this with regulations for powered aircraft?
In powered aircraft, except in an emergency, you may not turn off an engine
in flight.
When you turn your motor glider off in flight do you then become subject to
a different set of rules?
The answer is no, you do not.

The clincher is that, in states that levy personal property tax on aircraft,
there is often an exception for gliders and a resultant lower
levy. This lower levy applies to motor gliders. Do you think a state would
voluntarily give up a source of revenue?

With due deference to Judy (and truthfully, she and many others are a
marvelous fount of knowledge on this board),
you are all assuming facts not in evidence.

Todd, I am shouting for emphasis. Roger, good questions and reasonable
arguments.

And for Judy, the elements of 14 CFR 91.205 do not apply to motor gliders
since they are not powered aircraft.
If you assume that 91.205 applies to motor gliders then you would also have
to apply 14 CFR 91.213 and you would
violate the CFRs every time you turned off your engine in flight. My motor
glider limits the use of lights and certain other
electrical components to 10% of the running time of the engine. Which CFR
should I violate? Keeping my rotating
beacon on or not adhering to the POH?

Go back to the deliberations and exchanges associated with the 1997 changes
to the FAR's.
(Yes, they were FARs back then) to divine the intent of the current
regulations. You will find that, at no point
was it ever discussed or envisioned that motor gliders were to be powered
aircraft under the statutes.

Let the games begin!

Allan


"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "ADP"
>
> writes:
>
> >A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a
motor.
> >You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER.
> >No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider.
Let
> >me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is
NOT
> >a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER!
> >Allan
>
>
> Allan,
>
> Judy is the recognized expert on the FAR in this news group. When you go
up
> against her about the FARs you need to reference your opinion or you have
no
> validity.
>
> Judy always refers to the correct FAR to back up her statements. You
should
> too. What is your reference for such a strong statement?
>
> According to my copy of FAR 1.1 General Definitions, both a glider an
airplane
> would be considered aircraft because they are both, "...intended to be
used for
> flight in the air."
>
> Robert Mudd
>

ADP
August 19th 03, 08:38 PM
I know, go ahead and poke! Pokin at ya, pokin at ya, as what's her name
would say.
I could only wish that it were true. I get questions all of the time about
"FARs" and incorrect answers, as well.
Being an obsessive-compulsive pilot, this is one of my crusades. So far,
I've not made a single convert.

Now with regard to dive brakes vs. spoilers...........................

;-}

Allan



"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> >Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the
cover,
> >there are no FARs,
> >no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is
> >only the
> >Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14
has
> >parts with which you
> >are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the
aviation
> >population is unaware of this.
>
> Man is it ever fun to poke at Allan! ;) <--this is a wink
> It's almost amazing, but whatever they're called, everyone seems
> to know what you mean...kinda like dive brakes vs. spoilers ;-P
> Oh boy, here it comes, another NEW thread!!!
>
>
> P.S. I think a lot of people know they're CFR's but find it
> much more fun to say FAR's and see who gets ALL RILED UP!!! ;-PPPPPP

Mark James Boyd
August 19th 03, 09:16 PM
>Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover,
>there are no FARs,
>no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is
>only the
>Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14 has
>parts with which you
>are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the aviation
>population is unaware of this.

Man is it ever fun to poke at Allan! ;) <--this is a wink
It's almost amazing, but whatever they're called, everyone seems
to know what you mean...kinda like dive brakes vs. spoilers ;-P
Oh boy, here it comes, another NEW thread!!!


P.S. I think a lot of people know they're CFR's but find it
much more fun to say FAR's and see who gets ALL RILED UP!!! ;-PPPPPP

Paul Lynch
August 19th 03, 09:45 PM
Yes, let's do that (talk rationally)....

First, get off the high horse concerning CFR versus FAR. You are correct,
but the regs used to be called FARs and several FAA publications still call
them that.

Second, unless you can quote a specific reference in CFR 14, there is no
definition of "powered aircraft". Powered-lift, yes, but not powered
aircraft. Therefore a motor glider is a powered aircraft (when the motor is
operating) as are dirigibles, helicopters, gyrocopters, and the everpresent
airplane. A motorglider certainly can cause confusion, and there are
"holes" in the regs. I think you will find the requirements for instrument
and night flight clearly apply to the motorglider.

Third, if an aircraft is certified with a specific configuration that is
different than stated in the CFRs, then the certification takes precedence.
Changing the aircraft configuration can result in the aircraft coming under
a restriction that did not previously apply. The change (via an STC, or
337, or other method) will normally detail what the restrictions are.

Finally, your assertion that 91.205 does not apply to motorgliders is
incorrect. Read 205 carefully and you will see it does distinguishes
between airplane and aircraft. While a motor glider is never an airplane it
is a powered aircraft when operating under power. Similarly, a motorglider
under power cannot claim right-of-way over an airplane because the
motorglider is certificated in the glider category.

Paul


"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, let's talk about this rationally. The CFR 14 parts are interpreted
> every day by so-called experts
> and they haven't the slightest clue about the meaning and intent of these
> rules.
> The aviation rules encompassed by CFR Title 14 were initially written to
be
> permissive.
> That is, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by regulation, then it was
> assumed to be allowable.
> This attitude has been somewhat modified by our all knowing government but
> it is still extant.
>
> Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a
> powered aircraft, by definition.
> By definition, a powered aircraft is one that has an engine that operates
> continuously from take off
> to touchdown. Even though your motor glider can do this, it is not
required
> to. Finding this information
> is akin to reading the Federalist Papers to discern what the founding
> fathers meant. But, it can be done.
>
> Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover,
> there are no FARs,
> no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is
> only the
> Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14
has
> parts with which you
> are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the
aviation
> population is unaware of this.
>
> There are many Motor Gliders flying around with uncertified engines, by
> regulation, no powered aircraft can do so.
> I'll let Judy look up the appropriate reg. With no powered aircraft may
> you, for example, remove the wings, de or re-rig it.
> You may do so with your motor glider. With sustainer engines the engine
is
> not even a required piece of equipment.
> How do you reconcile this with powered aircraft requirements?
>
> The rules that specify powered aircraft were written for continuously
> operating engines. For example,
> in a motor glider you are not required to arrive anywhere with any fuel
> reserves or any fuel at all!
> How do you reconcile this with regulations for powered aircraft?
> In powered aircraft, except in an emergency, you may not turn off an
engine
> in flight.
> When you turn your motor glider off in flight do you then become subject
to
> a different set of rules?
> The answer is no, you do not.
>
> The clincher is that, in states that levy personal property tax on
aircraft,
> there is often an exception for gliders and a resultant lower
> levy. This lower levy applies to motor gliders. Do you think a state
would
> voluntarily give up a source of revenue?
>
> With due deference to Judy (and truthfully, she and many others are a
> marvelous fount of knowledge on this board),
> you are all assuming facts not in evidence.
>
> Todd, I am shouting for emphasis. Roger, good questions and reasonable
> arguments.
>
> And for Judy, the elements of 14 CFR 91.205 do not apply to motor gliders
> since they are not powered aircraft.
> If you assume that 91.205 applies to motor gliders then you would also
have
> to apply 14 CFR 91.213 and you would
> violate the CFRs every time you turned off your engine in flight. My
motor
> glider limits the use of lights and certain other
> electrical components to 10% of the running time of the engine. Which CFR
> should I violate? Keeping my rotating
> beacon on or not adhering to the POH?
>
> Go back to the deliberations and exchanges associated with the 1997
changes
> to the FAR's.
> (Yes, they were FARs back then) to divine the intent of the current
> regulations. You will find that, at no point
> was it ever discussed or envisioned that motor gliders were to be powered
> aircraft under the statutes.
>
> Let the games begin!
>
> Allan
>
>
> "Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "ADP"
> >
> > writes:
> >
> > >A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a
> motor.
> > >You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER.
> > >No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider.
> Let
> > >me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and
is
> NOT
> > >a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER!
> > >Allan
> >
> >
> > Allan,
> >
> > Judy is the recognized expert on the FAR in this news group. When you go
> up
> > against her about the FARs you need to reference your opinion or you
have
> no
> > validity.
> >
> > Judy always refers to the correct FAR to back up her statements. You
> should
> > too. What is your reference for such a strong statement?
> >
> > According to my copy of FAR 1.1 General Definitions, both a glider an
> airplane
> > would be considered aircraft because they are both, "...intended to be
> used for
> > flight in the air."
> >
> > Robert Mudd
> >
>
>
>

Mark James Boyd
August 19th 03, 09:55 PM
>FAR 61.93 only applies to "student pilots." This pilot is a
>private pilot, not a student pilot. 61.93 does not apply to
>him.

This pilot is certainly not a "private pilot - airplane."
So what section is he operating under for 61.31(c)? Under section
(2) or section (3)? If it's section (2) then he's got the
instructor on board (receiving training, pretty hard to
do while solo).



>>If you say you aren't under (1), then under (3)
>>you're going to need something in writing better than
>>"Billy Bob CFI told me verbally it was ok."

>He has a written endorsement for solo in airplanes.

What does the written endorsement say? Just "ok to solo stuff"?
Is there a signature of a CFI and endorsement? No section
number? Perhaps it says "OK to fly any plane anywhere?"

So write me a sample endorsement. If it doesn't reference
anything in the CFR, then the CFI is making up his own
stuff. If it references some student pilot section,
then it applies only to student pilots. If the guy
says he isn't a student pilot, then the endorsement is
invalid and we're back to 61.31(d)(1).

We had a local private pilot - glider who wanted to take
power lessons. Her CFI gave her some dual, and when it
came time for solo, asked our local examiner. The DPE
called the FSDO, the FSDO said she was a student pilot.
Get her a medical and sign it as a student and write the
endorsements out of the student pilot section of 61.

This was a relief to the CFI, since the pilot also was
not flight review current, and could have only gained such
currency in a glider.

Common sense also seems to hold up that a private pilot - glider
with no flight review, no medical, no X-C endorsements and
no X-C training or experience should not be flying from
Watsonville to Tallahasee.

Any CFI who writes an endorsement without citing a section,
or without giving the required training, would be pretty
bold. Any pilot who didn't comply with the section in the
endorsement, because it didn't apply because he isn't a student
pilot, would be violating section 61.31(d)(1).

I pointed this out to the NPRM sport folks also. A glider
sport pilot could be endorsed for J-3 cub sport license by a sport CFI
without any X-C training. In the sport case this was explicit.
NOT a good idea. Dunno if it's changed in the final version.

Jim Phoenix
August 19th 03, 10:03 PM
Judy Ruprecht... wrote:

snip, snip, snip

> because everybody talks about being 'right
> there at cloudbase.'

Yeah, I've always wondered about that and I've decided I'm glad they
don't listen to us on 123.3. I like being up there where it's cool and
you can't see very far...

> Egad, we're about to digress into 91.213 on the topic
> of approved MELs,>

One of my favorites!! Fraught with landmines and cowpies.

> Incorporated into this glider's Experimental Airworthiness
> certificate is an Operating Limitations page - a boilerplate
> form issued by a west coast FAA office; it limits US
> ops to Day VFR only, with instrumentation as listed
> in FAR 91.205.>

Ahh, yes - the old "incorporated by reference" guidance springs to
mind. Lucky you with the pre-1993 letter. I liked your previous post,
Judy: "Aren't FAR's fun?" I sure think so!!

Soon, I expect someone will post the FAR 1 definition of Glider... the
one with the word "principally" in it.

This is fun, but can we use apply the time spent cutting and pasting
rules to our Wings program? I better get my 1-26 over here, I
obviously need something to work on in the evenings.

Jim

Mark James Boyd
August 19th 03, 10:44 PM
>That's how I interpret it. (technically, he could "fly the
>motorglider around the field" if he aerotowed for launch :-)

The endorsement is for self-launch, not motorglider. Interestingly,
one must have a seaplane rating to fly a seaplane (even if amphib
and with the gear left down and only operated off runways).
I think the "sea" and "land" should be
ASE and AME endorsements (like aerotow or self-launch is to gliders),
rather than checkrides.

>The cautious CFI may limit the solo endorsement by valid
>duration, distance from home, flight in alphabet airspace.

I'm going to say it is more restrictive than that. If
a pilot does not have category and class license, then
he's a student pilot and follows all of those rules when
flying a (non-experimental) category and class not on the current
license.

This means 61.89, 61.93, 61.87, 61.95 need to be followed.
And no passengers allowed 61.89(a)(1).

If a person comes to me for training, I don't write all these
limitations when I solo them. They are in the regs.
I only write endorsements in compliance with 61.87 and
61.93 as the training is complete. If
it turns out later they had a private - glider and didn't
tell me about it, I wouldn't add these limitations, I'd
believe they were always in effect.

I'd say that the pilot is NEVER "exercising the privileges
of a pilot certificate with a glider category rating"
while flying a non-experimental Cessna 152. So none of
these privileges carry over.

And be careful about 61.63. Students for additional ratings
may have great experience, but when a CFI endorses that the
student is proficient in the areas of operation, there'd
better be a training endorsement. One instructor never gave
X-C training to a multi who was adding a single-engine rating.
Ooops. The guy ran out of gas AFTER he got his rating, because
he had never switched tanks before. One gal failed her instrument
checkride because she'd never done a hold. Ooops! Clearly the
CFI endorsement was falsified.

ADP
August 20th 03, 12:41 AM
Ah, Todd, Todd. There you go using logic to demolish my arguments. How
unfair, how cruel!
A perusal of AC 21.17-2a reveals, although it starts out by observing:

Subject: TYPE CERTIFICATION--FIXEDWING

GLIDERS (SAILPLANES),

INCLUDING POWERED GLIDERS

Date: 2/10/93

Initiated By: ACE-100

AC No: 21.17-2A

Change:

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information and guidance
concerning acceptable

means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with § 21.17(b) of part
21 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) for type certification of gliders and powered gliders.
Accordingly, this material is

neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a
regulation. General guidance

relative to glider type certification is also provided.



It also includes the following:



b. Additional Criteria for Powered Gliders.

(1) Powered fixed-wing gliders may be type certificated under Section
21.17(b) if:

(i) The number of occupants does not exceed two;

(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds); and

(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
kg/m2 (0.62

lb./ft.2).

NOTE: These criteria originated from JAR-22.

h. Section 91.205 of the FAR. Powered gliders are considered to be powered
aircraft for the

purpose of complying with § 91.205.





Oh how crushed am I as I search for Crow to eat. Oh how unkind this cruel
world.
A couple of caveats to recover as much of my ego as possible:
14 CFR 91.205 applies only to aircraft with "Standard" airworthiness
certificates

and

When you turn your motor glider off in flight do you then become subject to
> >a different set of rules?
> >The answer is no, you do not.
>
> Agreed. You are subject to rules that apply to "aircraft"
> and to those that apply to "powered aircraft," but not any
> that apply only to "airplanes."


Actually, it turns out that you do. If you turn off your engine, in my MG
you lose everything electrical except a radio.
You are now a pure glider and fly by glider rules. Incidentally there is no
differentiation between glider and motor glider in the right of way rules.
(14 CFR 91.113)

So, you were (mostly) correct and I stand corrected. I apologize to you and
to Judy for being strident as well as incorrect.
But think of this, with out Lenny or Al, who is left but me to take shots
at?

Allan



"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...

> "ADP" > wrote:
>
> >Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a
> >powered aircraft, by definition.
>
> So cite the definition you think applies.
>

ADP
August 20th 03, 06:17 PM
Thanks Jim and Judy.

I was aware that FARs (you win Todd) could be incorporated into
authorization letters by reference. I was not aware that
the FAA was more stringent these days, although it does not surprise me.

Incidentally, lest anyone think that I don't support safety issues that are
usually well stated here, I must add that I do.
My purpose with this thread was to define the limits of regulation and the
beginning of common sense.
I don't think that anyone should ever lose their life in a glider and I
support any efforts to reduce the possibility.

As a long time power pilot and a not-so-long-time glider pilot, I enjoy the
byplay on this forum and hope it continues.
We can always learn something new.

Thanks again.

Allan


"Judy Ruprecht" > wrote in message
...
> At 04:06 20 August 2003, Adp wrote:
> >Judy, I've already said my mea culpas.
>
> Yes, I saw that, Allan - thanks! (I only wish I'd come
> up with the AC 21.17-2 cite before Todd. Ain't he clever?)
>
> >Please tell me how 14 CFR 91.205, which requires a
> >standard >airworthiness certificate, can apply to experimental
> >aircraft.
>
> Well, 91.319(a)-(d) outline basic operating limitations
> for aircraft issued Experimental airworthiness certificates
> and 91.319(e) provides for unspecified 'additional
> limitations.' As Jim Phoenix mentioned, the aircraft
> was issued its airworthiness certificate when FAA policy/procedure
> guidance encouraged inspectors to include 'Instruments
> and equipment listed in FAR 91.205' in the Operating
> Limitations for individual aircraft. Many (most?) inspectors
> also slapped on a 'Day VFR Only' limitation, although
> at present, 91.319(d)(2) allows some leeway.
>
> In reality, the VFR instrumentation/equipment listed
> in 91.205(b) isn't a very demanding. Given a gear handle
> with 'up' and 'down' placards as standard equipment,
> the only extraneous item (compared to my POH) is the
> compass.
>
> It seems to me, though, that irrespective of how any
> glider may end up subject to 91.205(c) and/or (d) -
> for night flying and IFR, respectively - these are
> far more stringent requirements than many/most gliders'
> POH contemplate.
>
> Finally on the topic of Experimental gliders, there
> used to be some wide variances in the limitations issued
> by various FSDO offices, particularly in terms of the
> 'proficiency areas' within which the aircraft are permitted
> to operate. Thanks to Jim Short's determined efforts,
> this important certification issue has steadily improved
> in the last 10 years. Jim's 2002 piece 'Glider Importing
> and Sample Program Letter,' posted on the Government
> News section of SSA's website, is - or should be -
> required reading for current and prospective owners
> of Experimental gliders!
>
> Judy
>
>
>
>

Paul Lynch
August 20th 03, 07:16 PM
We recently went throught the requirements for a "transition pilot" argument
at our club. The CFIs all agreed (including our DPE) that the transition
pilot is not a student pilot. The club's board did not agree with the CFIs.
The FSDO and insurance company settled it quickly as they agreed with the
instructors. The instructors who did not already understand the reasons for
limiting the solo endorsement quickly learned they needed to add the
limitation lest the transition pilot be flying on the CFIs certificate
indefinitely.

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> >>You seem to think the student pilot restrictions do not apply to this
> >>private - glider.
> >Correct. They do not apply.
> >> Does this mean they can take passengers as well?
> >No. 61.31(d)(3) provides for a "solo" endorsement only.
> >>Do they need a 90-day endorsement or does this "solo" endorsement
> >>count forever?
> >It counts forever. The instructor has the right, but not
> >the obligation to limit the duration of his endorsement.
>
>
> Perhaps more succinctly, my point is just that one either
> believes one thing or the other.
>
> Either you think
>
> 1) a private-glider pilot with 61.31(d)(3) can
> fly ASEL (in this case) with the only restriction being it must be solo,
>
> or
>
> 2) that pilot must meet all the requirements just like a student
> ASEL pilot.
>
>
> It makes no sense to me that sections of "student" regs can
> be mixed and matched at will.
>
> If you believe 1, then the pilot needs a flight review, needs
> no medical, and can have no limitations other than the 61.31(d)(3),
> straight out of the reg, which says "solo".
>
> If you believe 2, then the pilot isn't a student pilot, but all
> of the sections applying to student pilots apply, including
> needing a medical, NOT needing a flight review, following
> limitations, and needing the various endorsements.
>
> I can believe arguments towards either 1 or 2, but I
> don't believe mixing the two makes any sense. Either
> the pilot is exercising the privileges of the glider - private
> with a 61.31(d)(3) endorsement, or the pilot is
> treated exactly like a student (but is not a student pilot).
>
> Instructor limitations and medicals are specifically
> addressed in the regs as applying to student pilots. If
> one believes 1, then the pilot isn't a student, so how can
> one carve up the regs to apply these regs but not the others?
>
> I believe there are very convincing arguments for either
> side, but I also believe that taking bits and pieces of
> each makes little sense...

Mark James Boyd
August 20th 03, 08:02 PM
>>You seem to think the student pilot restrictions do not apply to this
>>private - glider.
>Correct. They do not apply.
>> Does this mean they can take passengers as well?
>No. 61.31(d)(3) provides for a "solo" endorsement only.
>>Do they need a 90-day endorsement or does this "solo" endorsement
>>count forever?
>It counts forever. The instructor has the right, but not
>the obligation to limit the duration of his endorsement.


Perhaps more succinctly, my point is just that one either
believes one thing or the other.

Either you think

1) a private-glider pilot with 61.31(d)(3) can
fly ASEL (in this case) with the only restriction being it must be solo,

or

2) that pilot must meet all the requirements just like a student
ASEL pilot.


It makes no sense to me that sections of "student" regs can
be mixed and matched at will.

If you believe 1, then the pilot needs a flight review, needs
no medical, and can have no limitations other than the 61.31(d)(3),
straight out of the reg, which says "solo".

If you believe 2, then the pilot isn't a student pilot, but all
of the sections applying to student pilots apply, including
needing a medical, NOT needing a flight review, following
limitations, and needing the various endorsements.

I can believe arguments towards either 1 or 2, but I
don't believe mixing the two makes any sense. Either
the pilot is exercising the privileges of the glider - private
with a 61.31(d)(3) endorsement, or the pilot is
treated exactly like a student (but is not a student pilot).

Instructor limitations and medicals are specifically
addressed in the regs as applying to student pilots. If
one believes 1, then the pilot isn't a student, so how can
one carve up the regs to apply these regs but not the others?

I believe there are very convincing arguments for either
side, but I also believe that taking bits and pieces of
each makes little sense...

Michael
August 20th 03, 11:57 PM
"Paul Lynch" > wrote
> We recently went throught the requirements for a "transition pilot" argument
> at our club. The CFIs all agreed (including our DPE) that the transition
> pilot is not a student pilot. The club's board did not agree with the CFIs.
> The FSDO and insurance company settled it quickly as they agreed with the
> instructors. The instructors who did not already understand the reasons for
> limiting the solo endorsement quickly learned they needed to add the
> limitation lest the transition pilot be flying on the CFIs certificate
> indefinitely.

And on what basis is the transition pilot required to comply with the
limitation on the solo endorsement?

Chapter and verse, please.

Michael

Paul Lynch
August 21st 03, 12:07 PM
This particular chapter and verse comes from the secret handshake that CFIs
get when they become CFIs. ;)

Actually the use of limitations is entirely up to the instructor. AC61-65
has "recommended endorsements," some of which use the phrase "subject to the
following conditions." If you look at the AC, the recommended endorsement
for a transition pilot is #35...

"35. To act as PIC of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot who
does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(3)
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the training as
required by § 61.31(d)(3) to serve as a PIC in a (category and class of
aircraft). I have determined that he/she is prepared to serve as PIC in that
(make and model of aircraft). "

Note that the transition pilot is not a student pilot. Also note that
unlike the student pilot endorsement (under 61.87), there is no stated
expiration in the regs. Therefore a licensed airplane pilot with an solo
endorsement in gliders could fly a single seat glider for the rest of their
life without ever getting a checkride. Should that pilot have an accident,
he or she is "flying on the instructors certificate." A smart instructor
adds a time limit to protect themself from such an occurrence.

Similarly, you will often see restrictions put on the student solo pilot
endorsement limiting the student pilot to fly in winds under X knots or in
less than X cross-wind. Experienced instructors are not cavalier with the
endorsements. They are betting all their assets (house, car, retirement,
stock portfolio) everytime they endorse a pilot's logbook.

Sorry I can't provide a more detailed chapter and verse. The more you fly,
the more you learn that the FARs (CFRs to be technically correct) are only a
small part of flying an aircraft.

Paul

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Lynch" > wrote
> > We recently went throught the requirements for a "transition pilot"
argument
> > at our club. The CFIs all agreed (including our DPE) that the
transition
> > pilot is not a student pilot. The club's board did not agree with the
CFIs.
> > The FSDO and insurance company settled it quickly as they agreed with
the
> > instructors. The instructors who did not already understand the reasons
for
> > limiting the solo endorsement quickly learned they needed to add the
> > limitation lest the transition pilot be flying on the CFIs certificate
> > indefinitely.
>
> And on what basis is the transition pilot required to comply with the
> limitation on the solo endorsement?
>
> Chapter and verse, please.
>
> Michael

Judy Ruprecht
August 21st 03, 07:27 PM
At 23:42 20 August 2003, Michael wrote, quoting Paul
Lynch:

>(without a CFI-imposed limitation over & above FAR
>minimum >requirements)... the transition pilot (could)
>be flying on the >CFIs certificate indefinitely.

I know what you mean, but I'm the only one who'll be
operating 'ON' my CFI certificate, thank you very much
- particularly when it's in my back pocket.

>(to which 'Micael' responded) And on what basis is
>the >transition pilot required to comply with the limitation
>on the >solo endorsement?
>
>Chapter and verse, please.

Opinion only, since I know of no FAR directly on point
here. Still...

... under 61.31(d)(2), such an endorsement can be construed
as the CFI defining the 'supervision' he or she will
provide. (No supervision, no solo privileges.)

... under 91.103, required preflight action, the PIC
is required to 'become familiar with all available
information concerning that flight.' Logically (and
legally, one hopes) written CFI-imposed limitations
regarding x-winds, practice area, x-c routes and/or
time limitations would be considered pertinent.

... (hang on - this is sort of an indirect proof) 61.195(d)(iii)
prohibits a CFI from endorsing a student pilot certificate
or logbook for solo flight unless the CFI has 'determined
that the student pilot is prepared to conduct the flight
safely under known circumstances, subject to any limitations
listed in the student's logbook that the instructor
considers necessary for the safety of the flight.'
Nothing in this section or elsewhere in the FARs prohibits
the CFI from applying the same professional standards
to a transition pilot who is not the holder of a student
pilot certificate.

Judy

Judy Ruprecht
August 21st 03, 07:40 PM
At 18:48 21 August 2003, Michael wrote to Paul:

> So I repeat my question - what makes you think the
>>transition pilot is required to comply with any
>additional limitations, such as expiration date, crosswind
>>limitation, etc?

Yeah, so? What makes you think the holder of a student
pilot certificate is required to bide by any of the
CFI-imposed limitations outlined in and required by
61.195(d)(iii)?

It's anarchy out here... and oftentimes, common sense
can and should apply.

Judy

Paul Lynch
August 21st 03, 08:03 PM
The CFI should be concerned about liability. When I write "flying on my
certificate" the student or transition pilot is effectively doing that
subject to the limitations stated in the FARs/CFRs and the endorsement in
the logbook. Should a student pilot/transition pilot violate those
limitations, then the CFI has some protection should a lawsuit arise.

As Judy wisely wrote, common sense needs to be applied. If I knew one of my
students knowingly and repeatedly violated a limitation I would ask for
their logbook and rescind the endorsement. If they refused, I would contact
the FAA and let them deal with the recalcitrant pilot who clearly has no
business flying.

You are correct in one sense that I cannot show the detail wording in a CFR,
but then there are other sources. I encourage you to wade through the FAA's
FAQ on Part 61. See http://www1.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc
See page 28. The guys that wrote part 61 state, and I quote... ANSWER:
Ref. § 61.31(d)(3), § 61.87(l)(2) and Endorsement #35 in Appendix 1 of
Advisory Circular 61-65D; The person is not a student pilot and only needs
to have received Endorsement #35 in order to solo a glider. The person does
not need Endorsement #4 as this 90-day limitation [§ 6187(l)(2)] only
applies to student pilots. The person may continue to perform solo flight
operations on the basis of Endorsement #35. However, as a flight
instructor, even though the rules do not specifically state any requirement
for limiting your endorsement to 90 days, it would be legally prudent of you
to place such a limitation if you have any doubts about this person's
judgment or his propensity to enjoy suing you. However, the rules do not
specifically require you to place such a limitation, because those of us who
rewrote Part 61 did not think it was necessary to attempt to regulate good
vs. irrational judgment.





"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> "Paul Lynch" > wrote
> > This particular chapter and verse comes from the secret handshake that
CFIs
> > get when they become CFIs. ;)
>
> That's so fascinating. I must not have gotten my secret handshake.
>
> > "35. To act as PIC of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot
who
> > does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(3)
> > I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the training
as
> > required by § 61.31(d)(3) to serve as a PIC in a (category and class of
> > aircraft). I have determined that he/she is prepared to serve as PIC in
that
> > (make and model of aircraft). "
>
> Funny, I got this part.
>
> > Note that the transition pilot is not a student pilot. Also note that
> > unlike the student pilot endorsement (under 61.87), there is no stated
> > expiration in the regs.
>
> Nor is there a stated requirement to comply with any limitation his
> instructor might place in his logbook. So I repeat my question - what
> makes you think the transition pilot is required to comply with any
> additional limitations, such as expiration date, crosswind limitation,
> etc?
>
> > Sorry I can't provide a more detailed chapter and verse.
>
> In other words, you believe it to be true but can't actually support
> your belief in any way.
>
> Michael

Nyal Williams
August 21st 03, 09:13 PM
This is one case where logic does apply to the regulations.
The CFI has given a limited authorization (NOT CERTIFICATE).
If the transiztion pilot operates outside the limits
of the authorization he/she has no authorization.
The CFI did not authorize that and is not accountable.

At 19:12 21 August 2003, Judy Ruprecht wrote:
>At 23:42 20 August 2003, Michael wrote, quoting Paul
>Lynch:
>
>>(without a CFI-imposed limitation over & above FAR
>>minimum >requirements)... the transition pilot (could)
>>be flying on the >CFIs certificate indefinitely.
>
>I know what you mean, but I'm the only one who'll be
>operating 'ON' my CFI certificate, thank you very much
>- particularly when it's in my back pocket.
>
>>(to which 'Micael' responded) And on what basis is
>>the >transition pilot required to comply with the limitation
>>on the >solo endorsement?
>>
>>Chapter and verse, please.
>
>Opinion only, since I know of no FAR directly on point
>here. Still...
>
>... under 61.31(d)(2), such an endorsement can be construed
>as the CFI defining the 'supervision' he or she will
>provide. (No supervision, no solo privileges.)
>
>... under 91.103, required preflight action, the PIC
>is required to 'become familiar with all available
>information concerning that flight.' Logically (and
>legally, one hopes) written CFI-imposed limitations
>regarding x-winds, practice area, x-c routes and/or
>time limitations would be considered pertinent.
>
>... (hang on - this is sort of an indirect proof) 61.195(d)(iii)
>prohibits a CFI from endorsing a student pilot certificate
>or logbook for solo flight unless the CFI has 'determined
>that the student pilot is prepared to conduct the flight
>safely under known circumstances, subject to any limitations
>listed in the student's logbook that the instructor
>considers necessary for the safety of the flight.'
>Nothing in this section or elsewhere in the FARs prohibits
>the CFI from applying the same professional standards
>to a transition pilot who is not the holder of a student
>pilot certificate.
>
>Judy
>
>
>

Michael
August 21st 03, 09:46 PM
Judy Ruprecht > wrote
> > So I repeat my question - what makes you think the
> >>transition pilot is required to comply with any
> additional limitations, such as expiration date, crosswind
> >>limitation, etc?
>
> Yeah, so? What makes you think the holder of a student
> pilot certificate is required to bide by any of the
> CFI-imposed limitations outlined in and required by
> 61.195(d)(iii)?

14CFR61 Subpart C -- Student Pilots
61.89 General limitations.
(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by an
authorized instructor.

Michael

Paul Lynch
August 21st 03, 10:11 PM
That cite works for a student pilot. A certificated airplane pilot getting
glider training is not a student pilot. See the FAQs for Part 61 on the FAA
website.

As another poster noted, a CFI gives authorizations and may limit them as he
or she sees fit. Operate outside that authorization and you violate Part 61
and possible Part 91.


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Judy Ruprecht > wrote
> > > So I repeat my question - what makes you think the
> > >>transition pilot is required to comply with any
> > additional limitations, such as expiration date, crosswind
> > >>limitation, etc?
> >
> > Yeah, so? What makes you think the holder of a student
> > pilot certificate is required to bide by any of the
> > CFI-imposed limitations outlined in and required by
> > 61.195(d)(iii)?
>
> 14CFR61 Subpart C -- Student Pilots
> 61.89 General limitations.
> (a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
> (8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook
by an
> authorized instructor.
>
> Michael

Nyal Williams
August 21st 03, 11:32 PM
This one is interesting. I'd require him to get it
because he is a licensed pilot, and I'm not soloing
him as a student. I believe this to be more like a
checkout, whereas a BFR is much broader in scope.



At 22:54 21 August 2003, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>The last, and stickyest part about a transitioning
>pilot
>is the flight review requirement.
>
>Does a pilot transitioning from gliders to power (or
>vice versa) need a current flight review to fly solo
>in
>the new category?
>
>Kind of awkward to require a customer to go get a
>flight review in a different cat and class (which he's
>rated)
>before you can solo him. This doesn't make common
>sense,
>but if you don't believe he's a student pilot
>then he needs a flight review to fly solo/PIC, since
>61.56(g) does not exempt him from the requirement.
>
>But hmmm...I don't see any requirement that a pilot
>fly in an aircraft in which rated in the Wings program
>rules...
>http://www.dayafss.jccbi.gov/ac61-91.htm
>So perhaps one can do a flight review this way...
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mark James Boyd
August 22nd 03, 12:12 AM
The last, and stickyest part about a transitioning pilot
is the flight review requirement.

Does a pilot transitioning from gliders to power (or
vice versa) need a current flight review to fly solo in
the new category?

Kind of awkward to require a customer to go get a
flight review in a different cat and class (which he's rated)
before you can solo him. This doesn't make common sense,
but if you don't believe he's a student pilot
then he needs a flight review to fly solo/PIC, since
61.56(g) does not exempt him from the requirement.

But hmmm...I don't see any requirement that a pilot
fly in an aircraft in which rated in the Wings program
rules...
http://www.dayafss.jccbi.gov/ac61-91.htm
So perhaps one can do a flight review this way...

Judy Ruprecht
August 22nd 03, 06:07 PM
At 13:42 22 August 2003, Todd Pattist wrote in response
to
Mark James Boyd:
>
>>Does a pilot transitioning from gliders to power (or
>>vice versa) need a current flight review to fly solo
>>in
>>the new category?
>
>I think he does. (Otherwise), he could always voluntarily
>surrender his SEL under 61.27, obtain a student certificate
>and be treated as a student.

This may be one way of dealing with 61.56(c), but here's
what FAA's Part 61 FAQ has to say on the topic:

QUESTION: The scenario is a rated pilot who is training
for a new rating and is flying as a solo “PIC” with
appropriate endorsements. In accordance with § 61.56(g),
would this rated pilot still be required a current
flight review, even to solo the glider while under
instruction?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(d)(3); No, the pilot would not
need to have a current Flight Review to solo as PIC
a glider while undergoing training for that rating
in a glider, provided that pilot has received the appropriate
training and has a current solo endorsement in a glider,
as per § 61.31(d)(3). § 61.31(d)(3) was specifically
written to address this situation.

The complete FAQ is available online at

http://www1.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc

Judy

Michael
August 25th 03, 02:47 PM
"Paul Lynch" > wrote
> That cite works for a student pilot. A certificated airplane pilot getting
> glider training is not a student pilot.

Correct, and precisely my point.

> As another poster noted, a CFI gives authorizations and may limit them as he
> or she sees fit. Operate outside that authorization and you violate Part 61
> and possible Part 91.

Really? Exactly what part of Part 61 or 91 will you be violating if
you are not a student pilot? Chapter and verse please.

Michael

Michael
August 25th 03, 02:49 PM
"Paul Lynch" > wrote
> You are correct in one sense that I cannot show the detail wording in a CFR,

Because it doesn't exist.

> but then there are other sources. I encourage you to wade through the FAA's
> FAQ on Part 61. See http://www1.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc
> See page 28. The guys that wrote part 61

However, as has been stateed multiple times, their opinions are NOT
official in any way. The only official, binding opinions come from
the chief counsel's office.

Michael

..
August 25th 03, 04:49 PM
ADP wrote:
> Boy, despite Lynch's interpretation, I see no way around the requirements of
> 14 CFR 61.56(c).
> Certainly, a reading of 14 CFR 61.31(d)(3) does not seem to negate 61.56(c).
>
> The Flight Review can take place in any "aircraft" for which the pilot is
> rated.
>
> As an aside, it would certainly seem that by the time a pilot is signed off
> for solo he or she would meet or surpass any requirements for a Flight
> Review.
>
>
> Allan
>
> "Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>here's
>>>what FAA's Part 61 FAQ has to say on the topic:
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
The Flight review is only applicable to aircraft the pilot is rated for.
If the power pilot has been soloed but is not rated in glider then
they cannot get a flight review in a glider. In fact they are required
to get a 90 check, just like solo students, therefore a flight review is
not applicable. They carry a logbook solo endorsement in glider and are
limited to the gliders listed in the endorsement etc etc. Once the pilot
is glider rated however, they have taken and passed the practical and
the FAA has endorsed the back of their certificate for glider, they can
take the flight reviews in a glider and it carries over.

While the power pilot is "soloed" not rated in the glider they are
operating under the restrictions of a student while in the glider. If
they need a flight review they will have to obtain it in a power aircraft.

Been there done that .. when I was getting my power certificate I had
been glider rated for many years. The FSDO at the time, face to face
with the power instructor present, infomed me that I was not a student
pilot during the training and could log solo time as PIC. This was
before solo student could do that. I wasn't too sure but why would we
not beleive what the FSDO says. When it came time for my practical the
examiner had a fit .. no way was I supposed to be logging PIC.. so I had
to go back and redo the log entries while the examiner called into the
FSDO .. more of a hassle that anything else .. As was posted above ..
the FDSO does not interpret CFRs and if they do and you get snagged ..
you will still be found at fault ..

Whether the soloed pilot exceeds FR requirements may or may not be true
... many I have found would at least meet them. But it is not relavent
as the soloed non rated pilot is not elegible for a flight review in a
glider until rated.

R Schutte CFIG

Paul Lynch
August 25th 03, 06:25 PM
When an instructor endorses a logbook with a limitation and the student
violates that limitation then the specific section of Part 61 that the
endorsement contained is reg broken.

As for Part 91, that depends on what the pilot (student or transition) did.
91.3 addresses the PIC responsibilities (which a solo pilot, student or
transition, is by definition). 91.13 is for careless or reckless operation.
Once again, it depends on the circumstances and how much the feds want to
write up.

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Lynch" > wrote
> > That cite works for a student pilot. A certificated airplane pilot
getting
> > glider training is not a student pilot.
>
> Correct, and precisely my point.
>
> > As another poster noted, a CFI gives authorizations and may limit them
as he
> > or she sees fit. Operate outside that authorization and you violate
Part 61
> > and possible Part 91.
>
> Really? Exactly what part of Part 61 or 91 will you be violating if
> you are not a student pilot? Chapter and verse please.
>
> Michael

Paul Lynch
August 25th 03, 06:39 PM
Some interesting points. I do not agree with a transition pilot requiring a
90-day additional endorsement. The addtional 90-day endorsement is
specifically for student pilots (note the section of the CFR that must be
quoted). A transition pilot is not a student pilot. It doesn't matter if
they are transitioning from airplane to glider or single-engine to
multi-engine.

FSDOs have notoriously enforced the various CFRs in various, and even
bizarre ways. There are many inconsistencies from FSDO to FSDO. Our
particular FSDO (Richmond VA) concurs that any kind of transition pilot is
not a student pilot, as is pointed out in the FAQs (non-regulatory, but
generally good guidance). Our FSDO says a solo endorsement with
restrictions is a legally binding restriction on the student/transition
pilot.

So who won the fight of the PIC, the FSDO or the DPE? Since the DPE works
for the FSDO....

".." > wrote in message
om...
> ADP wrote:
> > Boy, despite Lynch's interpretation, I see no way around the
requirements of
> > 14 CFR 61.56(c).
> > Certainly, a reading of 14 CFR 61.31(d)(3) does not seem to negate
61.56(c).
> >
> > The Flight Review can take place in any "aircraft" for which the pilot
is
> > rated.
> >
> > As an aside, it would certainly seem that by the time a pilot is signed
off
> > for solo he or she would meet or surpass any requirements for a Flight
> > Review.
> >
> >
> > Allan
> >
> > "Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>here's
> >>>what FAA's Part 61 FAQ has to say on the topic:
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> The Flight review is only applicable to aircraft the pilot is rated for.
> If the power pilot has been soloed but is not rated in glider then
> they cannot get a flight review in a glider. In fact they are required
> to get a 90 check, just like solo students, therefore a flight review is
> not applicable. They carry a logbook solo endorsement in glider and are
> limited to the gliders listed in the endorsement etc etc. Once the pilot
> is glider rated however, they have taken and passed the practical and
> the FAA has endorsed the back of their certificate for glider, they can
> take the flight reviews in a glider and it carries over.
>
> While the power pilot is "soloed" not rated in the glider they are
> operating under the restrictions of a student while in the glider. If
> they need a flight review they will have to obtain it in a power aircraft.
>
> Been there done that .. when I was getting my power certificate I had
> been glider rated for many years. The FSDO at the time, face to face
> with the power instructor present, infomed me that I was not a student
> pilot during the training and could log solo time as PIC. This was
> before solo student could do that. I wasn't too sure but why would we
> not beleive what the FSDO says. When it came time for my practical the
> examiner had a fit .. no way was I supposed to be logging PIC.. so I had
> to go back and redo the log entries while the examiner called into the
> FSDO .. more of a hassle that anything else .. As was posted above ..
> the FDSO does not interpret CFRs and if they do and you get snagged ..
> you will still be found at fault ..
>
> Whether the soloed pilot exceeds FR requirements may or may not be true
> .. many I have found would at least meet them. But it is not relavent
> as the soloed non rated pilot is not elegible for a flight review in a
> glider until rated.
>
> R Schutte CFIG
>

Tony Verhulst
August 25th 03, 06:47 PM
> It's a surprise to most US pilots too. While glider IFR flight in IMC is
> possible under the FAR's, it does take a substantial skilset......

A fellow CFIG in my club used to fly a Schweizer 1-35 into thunderstorms
for meteorological research. The 1-35 is still on the field and is still
flying - currently being used for remote thermal detection research.

Tony V.

Paul Lynch
August 25th 03, 07:46 PM
Time for one and all to carefully reread 61.56.

A flight review can be conducted by a CFI in any category that the pilot
(and instructor) are qualified to fly. A flight review in an aircraft
covers the requirements for ALL the pilot's certificates and ratings. That
means the flight review in a glider covers the airplane requirement. That
means a relatively inexperience CFIG could give a flight review to an ATP,
mult-engine seaplane pilot and the pilot in question would be legal to fly
all the aircraft allowed on his or her certificate. Similarly, the checkride
the 747 pilot gets from the check airman every 6 months meets the flight
review requirements for a glider.

I have seen airplane pilots who were fighting the FAA over their medical
either get an flight review or add a glider rating because it got them legal
to fly an airplane once their medical got straightened out.

Here is the scary one (even a "squirrel)... A pilot shows up at your glider
club. He or she is certificated in gliders and airplanes and was a towpilot
years ago. The pilot has not flown in many years. They get a checkout by a
CFI in a club glider which is also endorsed as a flight review. This
checkout consisted of 3 flights. That pilot is now qualified to jump in the
tow plane (even a taildragger if they were at one time qualified) and tow
anyone, including a student. Sound crazy? That is the way the rules are
written. The only currency requirement for the tow pilot was the 3 glider
flight on tow, a current medical, and current flight review.


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> A "squirrel" case is when a guy argues something that
> might be true, but is so far in left field you gotta smile...
> I'm about to present one:
>
> >The Flight review is only applicable to aircraft the pilot is rated for.
> >If the power pilot has been soloed but is not rated in glider then
> >they cannot get a flight review in a glider.
>
> Not exactly. The Wings program satisfies the requirement for a
> flight review. I've seen NOTHING in the wings requirements
> that requires the pilot to do the Wings training in an
> aircraft the pilot is rated in. That doesn't mean it isn't there,
> and I welcome feedback if someone finds a "rating" wording in the
> Wings description, but I haven't seen it.
>
> So if you believe this "squirrel" case, an unrated pilot can do
> the Wings training in a glider, and this would count as a flight
> review.
>
> I personally love the Wings program, because I am not required
> to make any evaluation of the pilot in their logbook. I
> simply endorse that the pilot has done the training as
> outlined in the Wings program. I don't have to endorse
> that they were any GOOD at it, just that they did it.
>
> A 61.56 Flight review, on the other hand, means I have to
> review those manuevers necessary for the pilot to "demonstrate
> the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot
> certificate." This is a complete nightmare. If the guy
> has ATP AMEL, ASEL, ASES, tailwheel and glider, and a Citation type
> rating, there's maybe one CFI in 1000 who can review all of
> these privileges. Otherwise you gotta sign a flight review
> without checking all the stuff and if he barrels it in
> in a Seabee, his widow wants to talk to you...
>
> So I do almost all my Flight reviews as Wings phases.
> It's a great program, it's a good reward system, it's
> less onerous than the regular flight review, and
> everyone leaves with a smile...oh, and if a Wing's
> participant has a minor gaff with the FAA, they look
> favorably on the extra effort and are more likely
> to accept some sincere contriteness... :P
>
> Don't quote me on this, but they may even have the little
> wings pin without the prop, so it's for gliders? Maybe
> not (I've never done it), but wouldn't THAT be something
> for the hat!
>
> If you're a CFI or pilot and you aren't familiar with this
> program, you may be surprised at the benefits...
> Heck, I even have student pilots do phases of Wings. Even
> though it isn't a flight review (since they aren't
> rated) it still gets them a little pin.
>
> I just wish the SJ FSDO hadn't stopped sending out those
> cool little blue Wings Seminar announcements...WHAAAA!!
> (whines and sniffles).

Mark James Boyd
August 25th 03, 07:56 PM
A "squirrel" case is when a guy argues something that
might be true, but is so far in left field you gotta smile...
I'm about to present one:

>The Flight review is only applicable to aircraft the pilot is rated for.
>If the power pilot has been soloed but is not rated in glider then
>they cannot get a flight review in a glider.

Not exactly. The Wings program satisfies the requirement for a
flight review. I've seen NOTHING in the wings requirements
that requires the pilot to do the Wings training in an
aircraft the pilot is rated in. That doesn't mean it isn't there,
and I welcome feedback if someone finds a "rating" wording in the
Wings description, but I haven't seen it.

So if you believe this "squirrel" case, an unrated pilot can do
the Wings training in a glider, and this would count as a flight
review.

I personally love the Wings program, because I am not required
to make any evaluation of the pilot in their logbook. I
simply endorse that the pilot has done the training as
outlined in the Wings program. I don't have to endorse
that they were any GOOD at it, just that they did it.

A 61.56 Flight review, on the other hand, means I have to
review those manuevers necessary for the pilot to "demonstrate
the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot
certificate." This is a complete nightmare. If the guy
has ATP AMEL, ASEL, ASES, tailwheel and glider, and a Citation type
rating, there's maybe one CFI in 1000 who can review all of
these privileges. Otherwise you gotta sign a flight review
without checking all the stuff and if he barrels it in
in a Seabee, his widow wants to talk to you...

So I do almost all my Flight reviews as Wings phases.
It's a great program, it's a good reward system, it's
less onerous than the regular flight review, and
everyone leaves with a smile...oh, and if a Wing's
participant has a minor gaff with the FAA, they look
favorably on the extra effort and are more likely
to accept some sincere contriteness... :P

Don't quote me on this, but they may even have the little
wings pin without the prop, so it's for gliders? Maybe
not (I've never done it), but wouldn't THAT be something
for the hat!

If you're a CFI or pilot and you aren't familiar with this
program, you may be surprised at the benefits...
Heck, I even have student pilots do phases of Wings. Even
though it isn't a flight review (since they aren't
rated) it still gets them a little pin.

I just wish the SJ FSDO hadn't stopped sending out those
cool little blue Wings Seminar announcements...WHAAAA!!
(whines and sniffles).

Google