Ultralight sailplane aerotow liability

[Caracole]

We recently had a pilot show up and ask if we would aerotow him in his
Sparrow Hawk. Our first question was to ask if the glider was
licensed. His reply was that it was not required to be licensed. Our
second question was if he had insurance on the glider. He replied by
asking if insurance was a requirement for being towed. Our reply was
that if the glider is not insured, that we would be accepting
liability. We also said that we would need to check with our
insurance carrier, to see if our policy would even cover us while
towing an ultralight sailplane. We directed the pilot to resources to
pursue an airworthiness certificate for the glider.

This pilot has, in the meantime, found another FBO who was willing to
tow him.

We have now received the following reply from our insurance carrier,
SSA's group plan with Costello. This plan does not cover towplanes
while towing ultralights. If the light sailplane has FAA
airworthiness (Experimental), towing it would be covered by Costello.
If the light sailplane has FAA airworthiness (Experimental), it can be
insured by Costello for hull and liability.
If the light sailplane has no FAA airworthiness certificate, Costello
offers no hull/liability coverage. There may be other insurance
sources.


Operators should check their individual coverage, if they are with a
different insurance carrier, and are concerned about their liability.
Towpilots should understand they may be towing without coverage.

M Eiler

[BTIZ]

thanx Marty... we've filed it on our records.

BT
LVVSA

"Caracole" > wrote in message
om...
> We recently had a pilot show up and ask if we would aerotow him in his
> Sparrow Hawk. Our first question was to ask if the glider was
> licensed. His reply was that it was not required to be licensed. Our
> second question was if he had insurance on the glider. He replied by
> asking if insurance was a requirement for being towed. Our reply was
> that if the glider is not insured, that we would be accepting
> liability. We also said that we would need to check with our
> insurance carrier, to see if our policy would even cover us while
> towing an ultralight sailplane. We directed the pilot to resources to
> pursue an airworthiness certificate for the glider.
>
> This pilot has, in the meantime, found another FBO who was willing to
> tow him.
>
> We have now received the following reply from our insurance carrier,
> SSA's group plan with Costello. This plan does not cover towplanes
> while towing ultralights. If the light sailplane has FAA
> airworthiness (Experimental), towing it would be covered by Costello.
> If the light sailplane has FAA airworthiness (Experimental), it can be
> insured by Costello for hull and liability.
> If the light sailplane has no FAA airworthiness certificate, Costello
> offers no hull/liability coverage. There may be other insurance
> sources.
>
>
> Operators should check their individual coverage, if they are with a
> different insurance carrier, and are concerned about their liability.
> Towpilots should understand they may be towing without coverage.
>
> M Eiler

[Ian Forbes]

Caracole wrote:

> We recently had a pilot show up and ask if we would aerotow him in his
> Sparrow Hawk. Our first question was to ask if the glider was
> licensed.

My first question would be, is the pilot competent, current and licenced
to fly.

But then I don't live in the USA...


Ian

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian Forbes wrote:
> Caracole wrote:
>
>
>>We recently had a pilot show up and ask if we would aerotow him in his
>>Sparrow Hawk. Our first question was to ask if the glider was
>>licensed.
>
>
> My first question would be, is the pilot competent, current and licenced
> to fly.
>
> But then I don't live in the USA...

That's why your response would not be efficient here. The SparrowHawk is
sold in the ultralight category (< 155 pounds), and is not required to
be licensed. There is no point in spending time on the pilot's
qualifications if you are certain the glider doesn't meet the
requirements of your insurance policy. If the pilot shows up in a
licensed glider, I'm sure the questions proceed immediately to the
pilot's qualifications.

A few SparrowHawks are licensed, but not most them, at least at this point.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Vaughn Simon]

"Ian Forbes" > wrote in message
...
> Caracole wrote:
>
> > We recently had a pilot show up and ask if we would aerotow him in his
> > Sparrow Hawk. Our first question was to ask if the glider was
> > licensed.
>
> My first question would be, is the pilot competent, current and licenced
> to fly.

Because it is an ultralight aircraft, no pilot's license is required in
the United States, so the license question would be somewhat moot.
"competent and current" are always great first questions.

Vaughn





>
> But then I don't live in the USA...
>
>
> Ian
>
>

[Vaughn Simon]

"Caracole" > wrote in message
om...
>
> We have now received the following reply from our insurance carrier,
> SSA's group plan with Costello. This plan does not cover towplanes
> while towing ultralights. If the light sailplane has FAA
> airworthiness (Experimental), towing it would be covered by Costello.
> If the light sailplane has FAA airworthiness (Experimental), it can be
> insured by Costello for hull and liability.
> If the light sailplane has no FAA airworthiness certificate, Costello
> offers no hull/liability coverage. There may be other insurance
> sources.

It is interesting that aviation is increasingly being regulated far
more stringently by the insurance companies than by the FAA. The term "Self
Regulation" does not quite apply except in the very general sense that the
regulation comes from within the aviation industry, so I guess we could more
accurately call it "Market-Based regulation", or even "Insurance-Based
regulation".

Vaughn

[BTIZ]

Will this all change with the coming of the "Sport Pilot Certificate" and
the "Sport Aircraft" certification?? I'm sure the Sparrow Hawk will fit into
that category.

That will make it an "aircraft" or glider, and not an ultra light, but a
Sport Aircraft. I'm sure no one wants a Sport Pilot or Sport "Glider", did I
not read somewhere that Sport aircraft category is limited to 2000ft AGL?
and a set "distance limit" from home, and also the holder of a Sport Pilot
Certificate?

We all await the final decision on "Sport", and how it impacts the soaring
community, as I understand it, a SGS 1-26 will qualify to be flown in the
Sport category by a "sport certificated pilot". But many have flown the 1-26
to great heights and distances.

Time to study up on the "Sport" restrictions and capabilities, of both pilot
and aircraft.

BT

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Caracole" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > We have now received the following reply from our insurance carrier,
> > SSA's group plan with Costello. This plan does not cover towplanes
> > while towing ultralights. If the light sailplane has FAA
> > airworthiness (Experimental), towing it would be covered by Costello.
> > If the light sailplane has FAA airworthiness (Experimental), it can be
> > insured by Costello for hull and liability.
> > If the light sailplane has no FAA airworthiness certificate, Costello
> > offers no hull/liability coverage. There may be other insurance
> > sources.
>
> It is interesting that aviation is increasingly being regulated far
> more stringently by the insurance companies than by the FAA. The term
"Self
> Regulation" does not quite apply except in the very general sense that the
> regulation comes from within the aviation industry, so I guess we could
more
> accurately call it "Market-Based regulation", or even "Insurance-Based
> regulation".
>
> Vaughn
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

> It is interesting that aviation is increasingly being regulated far
>more stringently by the insurance companies than by the FAA. The term "Self
>Regulation" does not quite apply except in the very general sense that the
>regulation comes from within the aviation industry, so I guess we could more
>accurately call it "Market-Based regulation", or even "Insurance-Based
>regulation".

Hmmm...insurance companies have driven a good deal of choices
in all walks of life. Motorcycle helmet laws, airbags,
mandatory seat belts, etc. were strongly
lobbied by insurance in CA to reduce variability of claims.

Recently, I was told auto-tow would not be allowed
at a public airport which averages 7 operations a day, due to
liability. At least two local airstrip owners within the past
five years have changed their minds and won't allow
aerotow out due to liability.

Recently, a group of three men bought a 1955 Cessna 310,
only to find that they could not be insured until they had 100+
hours in the plane. Finding an instructor with that many hours
was challenging too...

When I bought into our PW-5 syndicate, the insurer would
only insure pilots with a glider PPL. No solo students allowed...

I personally like the insurance way of evaluating things, but
I abhor their involvement lobbying in politics. Fortunately,
although I've seen insurers muck with auto laws (the
helmet law), I've seen no action on their part to
try to change glider regulations...

One thing the insurance companies have NOT done to glider
pilots for insurance is require a medical exam. They'd have
the power to ask for this despite the regs. I think the
actuaries have found that glider accidents caused by
medical conditions (aside from drugs/alchohol) are quite rare...
This was a bit of a help to the folks who were trying to
make sport pilot happen for power (since there was already some
positive glider data). This also seems to indicate to me that
the insurance company (non-political) policies are quite good...

As far as sport pilot goes, I'm hoping that after the
first round of approval, a second set of endorsement possibilities
will appear. I'm hoping a sport pilot may fly at altitudes higher than
10,000 if they get oxygen system training and aeromedical
training from a CFI, for example. Or perhaps night flight
endorsement after 3 hours of dual at night. Reduced visibility
endorsement (equivalent to the VFR PPL vis and cloud clearance minimums)
by completing 3 hours of simulated or actual IMC. Etc...
The change to make ground-launch an endorsement vs. a flight test
shows precedent. I hope this becomes true for Sport Pilot
also. Otherwise, with the 10,000 ft altitude restriction,
Sparrowhawk is unlikely to want to make a Sport version (at
least that was one downside that Greg Cole communicated to me).

This seems really reasonable and efficient to
make these limitations removeable by endorsement, because it
then would nicely also dovetail into a PPL...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article <VQP8c.9144$1I5.308@fed1read01>,
BTIZ > wrote:
>Will this all change with the coming of the "Sport Pilot Certificate" and
>the "Sport Aircraft" certification?? I'm sure the Sparrow Hawk will fit into
>that category.

The Vne limit and 10,000 ft altitude Sport restrictions
discourage some glider makers from making
a glider a sport category aircraft...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[mat Redsell]

When I was inquiring about towing an ultralight the FAA said that an "N"
numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
be worth looking into.

-mat

[BTIZ]

very interesting.. I'll have to research that one..
it could be in the "FAR definition" of "aircraft, airplane, glider, and
ultralight"

BT

"mat Redsell" > wrote in message
...
> When I was inquiring about towing an ultralight the FAA said that an "N"
> numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
> be worth looking into.
>
> -mat
>
>

[BTIZ]

<snip>
> shows precedent. I hope this becomes true for Sport Pilot
> also. Otherwise, with the 10,000 ft altitude restriction,
> Sparrowhawk is unlikely to want to make a Sport version (at
> least that was one downside that Greg Cole communicated to me).
>
<snip>

makes sense to me, but with no N number.. there are those that are taking on
risk to tow the sparrowhawk aloft.

BT

[Tim Ward]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4064a206$1@darkstar...
> In article <VQP8c.9144$1I5.308@fed1read01>,
> BTIZ > wrote:
> >Will this all change with the coming of the "Sport Pilot Certificate" and
> >the "Sport Aircraft" certification?? I'm sure the Sparrow Hawk will fit
into
> >that category.
>
> The Vne limit and 10,000 ft altitude Sport restrictions
> discourage some glider makers from making
> a glider a sport category aircraft...
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

I think you'll find the altitude limit is on the pilot, not the aircraft.
This is probably so they don't have to have oxygen systems in the Sport
Pilot curriculum.
The Vne limit is kind of silly, but it's just a placard. What if someone
made a glider with a design dive speed of 350 kts, and then placarded Vne as
100 kts, just as a "safety factor"?
But really, why have a Sport Pilot glider license? You need to pass an FAA
practical in either case. In neither case do you need a medical.
The Light Sport Aircraft could make certification somewhat cheaper for a
manufacturer, but as long as gliders are able to get the Experimental --
Exhibition and Racing registration, I don't think it's a huge deal.
Where LSA had the possibility of being useful to gliders was in having LSA
towplanes. I think a purpose-built towplane could be built within the
constraints of LSA that would be fairly inexpensive to run. But as I
understand it, towing is explicitly forbidden.

Tim Ward

[Michael]

"mat Redsell" > wrote in message >...
> When I was inquiring about towing an ultralight the FAA said that an "N"
> numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
> be worth looking into.
>
> -mat

Mat,

I have seen N-registered tow planes towing gliders not being N-registered.
Are they all illegal in terms of FAA regulations?

Please let us know, thanks
Michael

[Tim Ward]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "mat Redsell" > wrote in message
>...
> > When I was inquiring about towing an ultralight the FAA said that an "N"
> > numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might
also
> > be worth looking into.
> >
> > -mat
>
> Mat,
>
> I have seen N-registered tow planes towing gliders not being N-registered.
> Are they all illegal in terms of FAA regulations?
>
> Please let us know, thanks
> Michael

Maybe you could register an ultralight sailplane as a "banner".

Tim Ward

[Burt Compton]

> FAA said that an "N"
>numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
>be worth looking into.

Please look into it - quote the FAR or the FAA letter stating this as a
reference so we can have it on file.

[Mark James Boyd]

US CFR 91.309 outlines towing of "gliders" which presumably
means "gliders" as defined by the FAA (with airworthiness
certificate that says "glider").

US CFR 91.311 says "No pilot of a civil aircraft may tow anything
with that aircraft (other than under 91.309) except in accordance
with the terms of a certificate of waiver issued by the Administrator."

The banner tow guys have waivers, according to my plane partner who
used to tow banners in Los Angeles. I assume one could apply for a
waiver to tow other things, but I'm guessing success could be spotty.
The FAA FSDOs seem to be getting more and more conservative
(no more field approvals, increasing experimental "limitations" list,
etc.).

In article >,
mat Redsell > wrote:
>When I was inquiring about towing an ultralight the FAA said that an "N"
>numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
>be worth looking into.
>
>-mat
>
>


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

91.309 and 91.311

Burt Compton > wrote:
>> FAA said that an "N"
>>numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
>>be worth looking into.
>
>Please look into it - quote the FAR or the FAA letter stating this as a
>reference so we can have it on file.


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Well, with a sport version, an N number is given.
And yep, it would be a "sport glider."

The benefit is that maint. and inspection requirments
can be attained by 80 hours + 16 hours of sport maint. trng.

Others have mentioned the sport glider rating is
silly. Agreed, for the straight rating. But the transition rating
is something quite different (and useful).

In article <s149c.12225$1I5.9505@fed1read01>,
BTIZ > wrote:
><snip>
>> shows precedent. I hope this becomes true for Sport Pilot
>> also. Otherwise, with the 10,000 ft altitude restriction,
>> Sparrowhawk is unlikely to want to make a Sport version (at
>> least that was one downside that Greg Cole communicated to me).
>>
><snip>
>
>makes sense to me, but with no N number.. there are those that are taking on
>risk to tow the sparrowhawk aloft.
>
>BT
>
>


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA