I have my new Sparrow Hawk

[Patrick McLaughlin]

I recived my Sparrow Hawk SN #10 just two weekends ago. I was the test
pilot for the virgin bird. After 2.5 Hrs. in light 'high-pressure day'
thermals in Central Oregon. All I needed to adjust was the rudder
peddle lenght. Greg Cole said I main a record for the most time aloft
with the least number of tows. @ tows and ~ 5.5 Hrs.

I was able to walk the glider out to the runway by mayself, at 155 lbs
& wheels, why not, hook-up and go. The tow, flight and landing is very
easy. Controls are very responsive and light, but not the least bit
twitchy. In otherwards, no over sensitive pitching as with many other
gliders.

I have been flying a Nimbus-II till the Sparrow hawk came around.
Although one is a mere 155 Lbs, while the other is well over 1,000
lbs. I found that transitining from one to the other was a non issue.
I have been flying powered aircraft and hang gliders sence 1972. It is
my honest openion that any one who has been flying moderate to high
performance flex wings and rigid wings will fell very much at home
with the Sparrow Hawk.

One would think that such a light glider would blow about like a paper
bag and have potentual penitration problems. Not so, Creg Cole has
designed airfoils specifically for this light weight application. What
with wing-loading similar to any other standard class glider it feels
very solid and secure, even in big air. Its like a solid high
performance sports car. I can thermal, much like my hang glider, as
tight as I desire, taking advantage of small light, scratchy thermals.
Many that I would simply pass up in many other sail planes. I hope to
travel about with it to many other sites.

Towing:
Our glider club said that as long as a Sparrow Hawk owner is a current
local club and SSA member, there will be no problems getting a tow and
have insurance cover the tow plane, but not the glider. We have a
Piper Pawnee. I am sure that the insurance situation will be the same
with many other clubs and comercial operations.

I will be flying my Sparrow Hawk glider much more real soon and hope
to answer any questions one may have.

[BTIZ]

"Patrick McLaughlin" > wrote in message
om...
> Towing:
> Our glider club said that as long as a Sparrow Hawk owner is a current
> local club and SSA member, there will be no problems getting a tow and
> have insurance cover the tow plane, but not the glider. We have a
> Piper Pawnee. I am sure that the insurance situation will be the same
> with many other clubs and comercial operations.
>

First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an N-number
and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"

If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow pilots at
their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else, if
they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
"glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of FARs and
most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point in time
it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.

JMHO
BT

[BTIZ]

also, most "Club" insurance policies cover the tow plane and the clubs
gliders, but not private owners gliders... so their statement is moot.. they
would be covered but you are not, unless their error causes your damage...

towing an "aircraft", not certified as a "glider" and not registered with an
N-number, violates FAR 91.311, do you have a waiver to tow an non registered
ultra light?

so would their policy be in force if an FAR is violated?

BT

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:iwYlc.11873$k24.11221@fed1read01...
> "Patrick McLaughlin" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Towing:
> > Our glider club said that as long as a Sparrow Hawk owner is a current
> > local club and SSA member, there will be no problems getting a tow and
> > have insurance cover the tow plane, but not the glider. We have a
> > Piper Pawnee. I am sure that the insurance situation will be the same
> > with many other clubs and comercial operations.
> >
>
> First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an
N-number
> and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"
>
> If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow pilots
at
> their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else, if
> they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
> "glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of FARs
and
> most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point in
time
> it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.
>
> JMHO
> BT
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

BTIZ wrote:
> also, most "Club" insurance policies cover the tow plane and the clubs
> gliders, but not private owners gliders... so their statement is moot.. they
> would be covered but you are not, unless their error causes your damage...
>
> towing an "aircraft", not certified as a "glider" and not registered with an
> N-number, violates FAR 91.311, do you have a waiver to tow an non registered
> ultra light?
>
> so would their policy be in force if an FAR is violated?

I can't find where the regulations says an aircraft has to be certified
to be a glider. What is the CFR number for that? I mean, clearly it's a
glider, or is there a CFR that requires an aircraft to weight over 155
pounds before it's can qualify as a glider?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[ADP]

It is always fascinating to me how people make up or interpret regulations
to fit their preconceived notions.

14 CFR 1 Definitions:

"Glider means a heavier-than-air aircraft, that is supported in flight by
the
dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and whose free
flight does not depend principally on an engine."

It seems to me that any vehicle capable of carrying a person, regardless of
weight,
that uses gravity as its principle means of staying aloft, meets the
definition of
a glider. I see no regulation that requires certification or that an
ultralight can
not also be a glider.

The original intent of the FARs was to be permissive rather than
restrictive.
Thus, if it is not specifically prohibited, it can be presumed, within
reason,
to be permitted.

So, Eric is right and Btiz is wrong.

Allan


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message

>>BITZ
>> so would their policy be in force if an FAR is violated?
>
> I can't find where the regulations says an aircraft has to be certified to
> be a glider. What is the CFR number for that? I mean, clearly it's a
> glider, or is there a CFR that requires an aircraft to weight over 155
> pounds before it's can qualify as a glider?
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Finbar]

> First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an N-number
> and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"

14 CFR § 1.1 General definitions.
..
..
..
Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight
in the air.
..
..
..
Glider means a heavier-than-air aircraft, that is supported in flight
by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and
whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.

------

The Federal Aviation Regulations do not limit the definition of a
Glider to an aircraft operated solely under Part 91, 121 and/or 135:
it may be operated under Part 103 and still be a Glider. Aircraft
operated under Part 103 do not require Airworthiness Certificates.
While an insurance policy may have requirements that the towed vehicle
have an Airworthiness Certificate, the FAA does not require one in
order to consider the vehicle a "Glider."

Also, the Airworthiness Certificate issued for the vehicle I regularly
fly does not anywhere describe it as a Glider, or as anything else.
There isn't even a box on the certificate where one would enter that
kind of information.

[Mark James Boyd]

BTIZ > wrote:
>
>First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an N-number
>and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"
>
>If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow pilots at
>their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else, if
>they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
>"glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of FARs and
>most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point in time
>it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.

So if it has an N number it's a glider and
if it doesn't it's an ultralight? If I paint an
orange yellow, is it a lemon? :P

If the federales ask at some point, it'd probably be
time to ask for a waiver. Banner, sparrowhawk, whatever.
If the insurers are willing to cover it, the
feds probably wouldn't even blink...especially since the
exact same aircraft with N number is fine...
--

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

[Brian Case]

Actually it would be more reasonable to argue the other direction.

I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
fly it.

I do not recall any regulation concerning towing of ultralight
vehicals so It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able to
Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required. They would have
to be careful not to be receiving any compensation for doing so.

Just because it might be allowed by the regulations does not make it
safe or reasonable to try it. Insurance wording is an entirely
different matter.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL



> First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an N-number
> and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"
>
> If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow pilots at
> their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else, if
> they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
> "glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of FARs and
> most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point in time
> it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.
>
> JMHO
> BT

[Jim Phoenix]

(Finbar) wrote in message>

> Also, the Airworthiness Certificate issued for the vehicle I regularly
> fly does not anywhere describe it as a Glider, or as anything else.
> There isn't even a box on the certificate where one would enter that
> kind of information.

Mine does. My glider (one of my gliders) has a Special Airworthiness
Certificate (U.S. of A.) and has the word Glider in parentheses
following the word Experimental in the Category/Designation block.
This is in accordance with the (U. S. of A) FAA Order 8130.2E, Section
6, paragraph 121.d

My other glider has a Standard - also U.S. of A. But I did see a
round-motored Sukhoi or Zlin or some such aerobatic thing last
Saturday with OK registration flying the box in central Washington.
Must have been a long ferry flight!

Jim

[Wayne Paul]

"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
om...
> (Finbar) wrote in message>
>
> > Also, the Airworthiness Certificate issued for the vehicle I regularly
> > fly does not anywhere describe it as a Glider, or as anything else.
> > There isn't even a box on the certificate where one would enter that
> > kind of information.
>
> Mine does. My glider (one of my gliders) has a Special Airworthiness
> Certificate (U.S. of A.) and has the word Glider in parentheses
> following the word Experimental in the Category/Designation block.
> This is in accordance with the (U. S. of A) FAA Order 8130.2E, Section
> 6, paragraph 121.d

I have been watching this thread for a while. So I thought I should take a
look at the US airworthiness certificate of my HP-14.

It is a "Special Airworthiness Certificate issued in 1987 and Block A reads:
"CATEGORY/PURPOSE Experimental"
"PURPOSE Operating Amateur-Built Aircraft (Glider)

A typewriter was used to enter the data on the certificate. Maybe the
entries are not as standardized as we would assume.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[BTIZ]

then go tell my insurance company that I am wrong... if it doesn't have an
FAA document (certification) in the "aircraft" that says it's a "glider"..
I'm not towing it. It's an ultralight, and FAR91.311 says I can only tow
according to 91.309, and 91.309 says "glider", I can't tow ultralights.

BT

"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> It is always fascinating to me how people make up or interpret regulations
> to fit their preconceived notions.
>
> 14 CFR 1 Definitions:
>
> "Glider means a heavier-than-air aircraft, that is supported in flight by
> the
> dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and whose free
> flight does not depend principally on an engine."
>
> It seems to me that any vehicle capable of carrying a person, regardless
of
> weight,
> that uses gravity as its principle means of staying aloft, meets the
> definition of
> a glider. I see no regulation that requires certification or that an
> ultralight can
> not also be a glider.
>
> The original intent of the FARs was to be permissive rather than
> restrictive.
> Thus, if it is not specifically prohibited, it can be presumed, within
> reason,
> to be permitted.
>
> So, Eric is right and Btiz is wrong.
>
> Allan
>
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>
> >>BITZ
> >> so would their policy be in force if an FAR is violated?
> >
> > I can't find where the regulations says an aircraft has to be certified
to
> > be a glider. What is the CFR number for that? I mean, clearly it's a
> > glider, or is there a CFR that requires an aircraft to weight over 155
> > pounds before it's can qualify as a glider?
> >
> > --
> > Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> > Eric Greenwell
> > Washington State
> > USA
> >
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

Brian... read 91.311, it says you can't tow ANYTHING (banners, whatever)
without a waiver, except as outlined in 91.309. 91.309 is the "glider tow"
endorsement.

Our insurance carrier has made it clear that without an airworthy
certification that says "glider" we are not covered. Arguments about FARs
are open to debate, that's why we have lawyers.

BT


"Brian Case" > wrote in message
om...
> Actually it would be more reasonable to argue the other direction.
>
> I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
> consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
> the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
> the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
> not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
> fly it.
>
> I do not recall any regulation concerning towing of ultralight
> vehicals so It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
> concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
> vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able to
> Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required. They would have
> to be careful not to be receiving any compensation for doing so.
>
> Just because it might be allowed by the regulations does not make it
> safe or reasonable to try it. Insurance wording is an entirely
> different matter.
>
> Brian
> CFIIG/ASEL
>
>
>
> > First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an
N-number
> > and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"
> >
> > If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow pilots
at
> > their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else,
if
> > they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
> > "glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of FARs
and
> > most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point in
time
> > it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.
> >
> > JMHO
> > BT

[Jim Phoenix]

>
Block A reads: > "CATEGORY/PURPOSE Experimental"
> "PURPOSE Operating Amateur-Built Aircraft (Glider)
>
> A typewriter was used to enter the data on the certificate. Maybe the
> entries are not as standardized as we would assume.
>
> Wayne
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


Yeah, maybe not very standardized - but the word glider is there. The Order
also says if it's a balloon, it should have the word Balloon in
parentheses - apparently this annotation of type on the Special
Airworthiness Certificate is to help the FAA to know that no medical is
needed (!!??) - at least that's what it says in the Order. There will
certainly be differences between Special Airworthiness Certificates typed up
before 1993 and after 1993 - quite a change in the guidance that year.

On another note, I saw a notice in the Federal Register last Friday -
actually a Final Rule - that says if one does not print or type one's name
on the temporary registration certificate as required by the rule,
instructions, order, guidance, etc. - then the registration certificate will
not be processed and then one would be in a heap o' trouble. It appears one
must sign the form with your signature AND print or type your name on the
form.

Hard to believe they had to go to the Federal Register on this one!! If you
get bored with RAS, you can always read the FR for fun, or maybe load up Dr.
Jacks and pray for a change in the forecast. If you really want to have some
fun, go find the FAR Preambles on the web and read the true meaning of
towing an ultralight, it's kinda fun - but very difficult to find.

Back to sanding wing tips now...

Jim

[BTIZ]

further review of Part 103 was recommended.. So I read the entire 3 pages.
I only see two types of Ultralights.. Powered and Unpowered, and no where
anywhere in Part 103 did I find a reference to an "Ultralight glider"

So... if operating under Part 103, it's an ultralight and gives way to all
aircraft.
If you want to be called a glider, then I'm thinking you want to operate
under Part 91 which means you need an airworthiness certificate. And Part
91.309 says I can only tow "glider" , not an unpowered ultra light. That
would fall into that other category under 91.311.

Also, there is no definition for "ultralight" in FAR 1.1, that definition
only exists in Part 103

Part 103 also says no pilot certification to fly an "ultralight" is
required, so how can I properly assess that any "pilot" that shows up with
an "ultra light" can actually fly it.

I've always liked the design of the Sparrowhawk and would love to have one.
If and when I do, I'll take the extra time to get the certifications to fly
under Part 91.

BT

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:_rgmc.12051$k24.7723@fed1read01...
> Brian... read 91.311, it says you can't tow ANYTHING (banners, whatever)
> without a waiver, except as outlined in 91.309. 91.309 is the "glider
tow"
> endorsement.
>
> Our insurance carrier has made it clear that without an airworthy
> certification that says "glider" we are not covered. Arguments about FARs
> are open to debate, that's why we have lawyers.
>
> BT
>
>
> "Brian Case" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Actually it would be more reasonable to argue the other direction.
> >
> > I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
> > consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
> > the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
> > the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
> > not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
> > fly it.
> >
> > I do not recall any regulation concerning towing of ultralight
> > vehicals so It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
> > concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
> > vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able to
> > Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required. They would have
> > to be careful not to be receiving any compensation for doing so.
> >
> > Just because it might be allowed by the regulations does not make it
> > safe or reasonable to try it. Insurance wording is an entirely
> > different matter.
> >
> > Brian
> > CFIIG/ASEL
> >
> >
> >
> > > First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an
> N-number
> > > and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"
> > >
> > > If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow
pilots
> at
> > > their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else,
> if
> > > they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
> > > "glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of
FARs
> and
> > > most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point
in
> time
> > > it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.
> > >
> > > JMHO
> > > BT
>
>

[BTIZ]

what Jim... no links?

BT

"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Block A reads: > "CATEGORY/PURPOSE Experimental"
> > "PURPOSE Operating Amateur-Built Aircraft (Glider)
> >
> > A typewriter was used to enter the data on the certificate. Maybe the
> > entries are not as standardized as we would assume.
> >
> > Wayne
> > http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
>
>
> Yeah, maybe not very standardized - but the word glider is there. The
Order
> also says if it's a balloon, it should have the word Balloon in
> parentheses - apparently this annotation of type on the Special
> Airworthiness Certificate is to help the FAA to know that no medical is
> needed (!!??) - at least that's what it says in the Order. There will
> certainly be differences between Special Airworthiness Certificates typed
up
> before 1993 and after 1993 - quite a change in the guidance that year.
>
> On another note, I saw a notice in the Federal Register last Friday -
> actually a Final Rule - that says if one does not print or type one's name
> on the temporary registration certificate as required by the rule,
> instructions, order, guidance, etc. - then the registration certificate
will
> not be processed and then one would be in a heap o' trouble. It appears
one
> must sign the form with your signature AND print or type your name on the
> form.
>
> Hard to believe they had to go to the Federal Register on this one!! If
you
> get bored with RAS, you can always read the FR for fun, or maybe load up
Dr.
> Jacks and pray for a change in the forecast. If you really want to have
some
> fun, go find the FAR Preambles on the web and read the true meaning of
> towing an ultralight, it's kinda fun - but very difficult to find.
>
> Back to sanding wing tips now...
>
> Jim
>
>

[Jim Phoenix]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:frhmc.12063$k24.9961@fed1read01...
> what Jim... no links?

Jeez... I didn't think anyone was really interested in reading this stuff!

Just google GPO for the Federal Register, and you can get the 8130.2E at
faa.gov.

Jim

[BTIZ]

well... Jim.. I meant the ultralight tow issue..

whatwhichwhose wing tips?

BT

"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:frhmc.12063$k24.9961@fed1read01...
> > what Jim... no links?
>
> Jeez... I didn't think anyone was really interested in reading this stuff!
>
> Just google GPO for the Federal Register, and you can get the 8130.2E at
> faa.gov.
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[Finbar]

> I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
> consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
> the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
> the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
> not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
> fly it.
>

On the contrary, there is absolutely nothing in Part 103 saying that
an ultralight vehicle is not an aircraft. It is one, in accordance
with the definition of an Aircraft in 14 CFR Part 1.1.

Part 103 exempts ultralight vehicles from the requirements that would
otherwise apply to aircraft under 14 CFR. For example,
"Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of
aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their
component parts and equipment are not required to meet the
airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to
have certificates of airworthiness." Note that it does not suggest
that ultralight vehicles are not aircraft, it merely exempts them from
the standards and requirement for certificates of airworthiness.

>
>It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
>concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
>vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able
to
>Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required.
>

Again, on the contrary, 14 CFR 91.311 requires an exemption to use an
aircraft to tow anything other than a glider, and a glider can only be
towed subject to the relevant requirements.

It does seem to me that the FAA wanted to stay away from having
anything to do with ultralight vehicles, and probably didn't have in
mind the possibility that one might be towed by a certificated
aircraft. So certainly if substantial amounts of common sense aren't
applied by pilots themselves and people start towing hang gliders with
Pawnees, the FAA is likely to feel compelled to step in. Hang glider
pilots, in general, seem to have a fair understanding of what would
happen to a flexwing towed at 70 knots, and Pawnee pilots probably
have enough common sense not to try it, but then again to paraphrase
someone or other, no-one ever got rich by over-estimating the
intelligence of the public...

And Jim Phoenix is right: there IS a requirement that an Experimental
glider should have (Glider) in the Category/Designation block. The
reason, oddly, is to "ensure appropriate application of 14 CFR Part 61
.... concerning the medical requirements for the operation of such
aircraft."

[Finbar]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:<Uhhmc.12061
>
> Also, there is no definition for "ultralight" in FAR 1.1, that definition
> only exists in Part 103
>

The definitions in 14 CFR Part 1.1 cover Part 103.

[Bob]

>
>>It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
>>concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
>>vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able
>
> to
>
>>Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required.
>>
>
>
> Again, on the contrary, 14 CFR 91.311 requires an exemption to use an
> aircraft to tow anything other than a glider, and a glider can only be
> towed subject to the relevant requirements.


It looks like the USHGA has an exemption No. 4144 from the FAA that
covers the towing of unpowered ultralight aircraft by powered ultralight
aircraft where both aircraft would be operating under part 103 There
are a lot of requirements spelled out under the USHGA rules part 104
that cover required pilot training and also related to equipment and
which the exemption requires be met. See:

http://www.ushga.org/104-part-2.asp#4144

The case where a towplane operating under part 61 and 91 would be towing
an unpowered ultralight that was not registered, and therefore operating
under part 103, would appear to have been not accounted for under either
part 103 or part 61 and 91 and likely appears to be not allowed without
another waiver, at least on the part of the towplane operating under
part 61 and 91.


>
> It does seem to me that the FAA wanted to stay away from having
> anything to do with ultralight vehicles, and probably didn't have in
> mind the possibility that one might be towed by a certificated
> aircraft. So certainly if substantial amounts of common sense aren't
> applied by pilots themselves and people start towing hang gliders with
> Pawnees, the FAA is likely to feel compelled to step in. Hang glider
> pilots, in general, seem to have a fair understanding of what would
> happen to a flexwing towed at 70 knots, and Pawnee pilots probably
> have enough common sense not to try it, but then again to paraphrase
> someone or other, no-one ever got rich by over-estimating the
> intelligence of the public...
>

This is almost exactly what they say in U.S. DOT FAA Advisory Circular 103-7
see http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/AC103-7/ac103-7.html

They mainly care about protecting the non-flying public, and other
members of the flying public using the same airspace, but:

"Part 103 is based on the assumption that any individual who elects
to fly an ultralight vehicle has assessed the dangers involved and
assumes personal responsibility for his/her safety."

" e. You are Responsible for the Future Direction the Federal
Government Takes
With Respect to Ultralight Vehicles, The actions of the ultralight
community
will affect the direction Government takes in future regulations.
The safety
record of ultralight vehicles will be the foremost factor in
determining the need
for further regulations."

[Rene Lundgren]

Patrick

Congratulations with your new plane, and thank you for sharing the first
flight experience with the NG.

Look forward to read more about it in the near future.
It seems the most important thing here, is all the rules&regulations BS, not
the fact that a fellow glider wants to share a nice experience with us!!

Anyway - happy landings.

Rene


"Patrick McLaughlin" > skrev i en meddelelse
om...
> I recived my Sparrow Hawk SN #10 just two weekends ago. I was the test
> pilot for the virgin bird. After 2.5 Hrs. in light 'high-pressure day'
> thermals in Central Oregon. All I needed to adjust was the rudder
> peddle lenght. Greg Cole said I main a record for the most time aloft
> with the least number of tows. @ tows and ~ 5.5 Hrs.
>
> I was able to walk the glider out to the runway by mayself, at 155 lbs
> & wheels, why not, hook-up and go. The tow, flight and landing is very
> easy. Controls are very responsive and light, but not the least bit
> twitchy. In otherwards, no over sensitive pitching as with many other
> gliders.
>
> I have been flying a Nimbus-II till the Sparrow hawk came around.
> Although one is a mere 155 Lbs, while the other is well over 1,000
> lbs. I found that transitining from one to the other was a non issue.
> I have been flying powered aircraft and hang gliders sence 1972. It is
> my honest openion that any one who has been flying moderate to high
> performance flex wings and rigid wings will fell very much at home
> with the Sparrow Hawk.
>
> One would think that such a light glider would blow about like a paper
> bag and have potentual penitration problems. Not so, Creg Cole has
> designed airfoils specifically for this light weight application. What
> with wing-loading similar to any other standard class glider it feels
> very solid and secure, even in big air. Its like a solid high
> performance sports car. I can thermal, much like my hang glider, as
> tight as I desire, taking advantage of small light, scratchy thermals.
> Many that I would simply pass up in many other sail planes. I hope to
> travel about with it to many other sites.
>
> Towing:
> Our glider club said that as long as a Sparrow Hawk owner is a current
> local club and SSA member, there will be no problems getting a tow and
> have insurance cover the tow plane, but not the glider. We have a
> Piper Pawnee. I am sure that the insurance situation will be the same
> with many other clubs and comercial operations.
>
> I will be flying my Sparrow Hawk glider much more real soon and hope
> to answer any questions one may have.

[Pete Reinhart]

"Jim Phoenix" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Block A reads: > "CATEGORY/PURPOSE Experimental"
> > "PURPOSE Operating Amateur-Built Aircraft (Glider)
> > Back to sanding wing tips now...
>
> Jim
>
> Jim,
At it again?
Or, still at it?
I thought you was through with all that sandin' stuff fo' a while.
Cheers!

[Nyal Williams]

There are a couple of answers to the insurance question
for Sparrowhawk like gliders and towplanes.

The simplest might be just to register as an Experimental,
in which case the problems just disappear.

Further, the Recreational Aircraft rule has not died;
it is very much alive, but under some delay. AOPA
has withdrawn it for some more work on it, according
to an FSDO presentation on it at the Wings Program
two nights ago.

His opinion there is that this new rule will change
lots of things in the industry and offer lots of ways
for people to make money.
If the projections for growth in this market are 50%
attainable, the insurance companies will take notice
and will very likely write new kinds of policies to
take advantage of it.

[Jim Phoenix]

"Pete Reinhart" > wrote in message > At it again?
> Or, still at it?
> I thought you was through with all that sandin' stuff fo' a while.
> Cheers!

Just re-finishing the 22.9m tips - something to do in the evenings
before I put myself to sleep reading rules. Not that I would use them
for anything. (the rules or the tips ;-)

Jim

[Tom Seim]

> I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
> consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
> the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
> the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
> not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
> fly it.
>
> I do not recall any regulation concerning towing of ultralight
> vehicals so It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
> concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
> vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able to
> Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required. They would have
> to be careful not to be receiving any compensation for doing so.

I contacted the Spokane FSDO and spoke to Chuck Roberts (800-341-2623)
about this. He did not think there was any problem towing ultralights,
providing they were compatible with the tow plane (Vne). The
definition of glider and aircraft does not include any mention of
certification, so an ultra-light is an aircraft and an ultra-light
glider is a glider per the FARs. He did allow that the FARs do refer
to ultra-lights as "vehicles" instead of aircraft. He said the purpose
here is to prevent ultra-lights from becoming entangled with other
FARs that cover "aircraft". Chuck said that if you want to get the
issue resolved you can write him (or any FSDO) a letter requesting a
clarification of the FARs. This would then be forwarded to FAA legal
who would (eventually) issue a ruling. Also, the tow plane operator
can request a waiver to tow ultra-lights, but the waiver would only be
valid for that particular tow plane.

As far as insurance goes, if the FARs allow it and it isn't
specifically excluded in the policy then you are covered.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Tony Verhulst]

> As far as insurance goes, if the FARs allow it and it isn't
> specifically excluded in the policy then you are covered.

A few times a year, my club has "encampments" to different sites for a
week or two at a time - just for a change in pace.

We would ferry some gliders to the new site (or back) two at a time
behind a tow plane (100nm+). We'd put one glider on a 200 foot rope in
high tow and off to one of side of the tow plane. The other glider would
be on a 300 foot rope in low tow and on the opposite side of the tow
plane. All pilots were very experienced and well briefed before the
flight and we never had the slightest problem.

We did this for years until a board member decided to check with the
insurance company. The reply was (in effect): if there's an accident
while performing the dual tow, we'd probably cover you, but would likely
decline to provide coverage the following year.

We don't do dual tows anymore. Bummer. It was kind of fun.

Tony V.

[ADP]

Tow whatever you want but don't justify it by making up regulations.
If your insurance company specifies certain requirements, then it is their
(and your) problem.
The CFRs you site say no such thing.

Allan

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:kmgmc.12050$k24.5148@fed1read01...
> then go tell my insurance company that I am wrong... if it doesn't have an
> FAA document (certification) in the "aircraft" that says it's a "glider"..
> I'm not towing it. It's an ultralight, and FAR91.311 says I can only tow
> according to 91.309, and 91.309 says "glider", I can't tow ultralights.
>

[BTIZ]

we got the same answer Tony... even though dual tows was on the SSA handbook

BT

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>
> > As far as insurance goes, if the FARs allow it and it isn't
> > specifically excluded in the policy then you are covered.
>
> A few times a year, my club has "encampments" to different sites for a
> week or two at a time - just for a change in pace.
>
> We would ferry some gliders to the new site (or back) two at a time
> behind a tow plane (100nm+). We'd put one glider on a 200 foot rope in
> high tow and off to one of side of the tow plane. The other glider would
> be on a 300 foot rope in low tow and on the opposite side of the tow
> plane. All pilots were very experienced and well briefed before the
> flight and we never had the slightest problem.
>
> We did this for years until a board member decided to check with the
> insurance company. The reply was (in effect): if there's an accident
> while performing the dual tow, we'd probably cover you, but would likely
> decline to provide coverage the following year.
>
> We don't do dual tows anymore. Bummer. It was kind of fun.
>
> Tony V.
>

[BTIZ]

-FAR 91.309 specifically says "glider"
-FAR 91.311 specifically says not to tow anything except as allowed by
91.309 unless you have a waiver
-FAR 103 makes no reference to a glider, but to an "un powered ultra light"
-A glider has rules for pilot certification and glider operations under
parts 61 and 91
-An unpowered ultralight is only governed by part 103 and has no pilot
certification requirements

Which is easier, for the tow plane and 8 tow pilots to get waivers under
91.311
or one sparrowhawk pilot to get an experimental certification. The standard
waiver under 91.311 is based on that pilot and that plane, not a blanket
waiver on the plane with any pilot, although I suppose it could be written
that way.

As for.. well, the local FSDO says,.. could you get that in writing please?
and I'll take it to our local FSDO for their interpretation.

BT

"Patrick McLaughlin" > wrote in message
om...
> I recived my Sparrow Hawk SN #10 just two weekends ago. I was the test
> pilot for the virgin bird. After 2.5 Hrs. in light 'high-pressure day'
> thermals in Central Oregon. All I needed to adjust was the rudder
> peddle lenght. Greg Cole said I main a record for the most time aloft
> with the least number of tows. @ tows and ~ 5.5 Hrs.
>
> I was able to walk the glider out to the runway by mayself, at 155 lbs
> & wheels, why not, hook-up and go. The tow, flight and landing is very
> easy. Controls are very responsive and light, but not the least bit
> twitchy. In otherwards, no over sensitive pitching as with many other
> gliders.
>
> I have been flying a Nimbus-II till the Sparrow hawk came around.
> Although one is a mere 155 Lbs, while the other is well over 1,000
> lbs. I found that transitining from one to the other was a non issue.
> I have been flying powered aircraft and hang gliders sence 1972. It is
> my honest openion that any one who has been flying moderate to high
> performance flex wings and rigid wings will fell very much at home
> with the Sparrow Hawk.
>
> One would think that such a light glider would blow about like a paper
> bag and have potentual penitration problems. Not so, Creg Cole has
> designed airfoils specifically for this light weight application. What
> with wing-loading similar to any other standard class glider it feels
> very solid and secure, even in big air. Its like a solid high
> performance sports car. I can thermal, much like my hang glider, as
> tight as I desire, taking advantage of small light, scratchy thermals.
> Many that I would simply pass up in many other sail planes. I hope to
> travel about with it to many other sites.
>
> Towing:
> Our glider club said that as long as a Sparrow Hawk owner is a current
> local club and SSA member, there will be no problems getting a tow and
> have insurance cover the tow plane, but not the glider. We have a
> Piper Pawnee. I am sure that the insurance situation will be the same
> with many other clubs and comercial operations.
>
> I will be flying my Sparrow Hawk glider much more real soon and hope
> to answer any questions one may have.

[Doug Taylor]

I would like to congratulate Tom Seim for actually checking something out!

[Slick]

can't we make just this one exception for the sparrow hawk?
"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:mgAmc.12210$k24.4171@fed1read01...
> -FAR 91.309 specifically says "glider"
> -FAR 91.311 specifically says not to tow anything except as allowed by
> 91.309 unless you have a waiver
> -FAR 103 makes no reference to a glider, but to an "un powered ultra
light"
> -A glider has rules for pilot certification and glider operations under
> parts 61 and 91
> -An unpowered ultralight is only governed by part 103 and has no pilot
> certification requirements
>
> Which is easier, for the tow plane and 8 tow pilots to get waivers under
> 91.311
> or one sparrowhawk pilot to get an experimental certification. The
standard
> waiver under 91.311 is based on that pilot and that plane, not a blanket
> waiver on the plane with any pilot, although I suppose it could be written
> that way.
>
> As for.. well, the local FSDO says,.. could you get that in writing
please?
> and I'll take it to our local FSDO for their interpretation.
>
> BT
>
> "Patrick McLaughlin" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I recived my Sparrow Hawk SN #10 just two weekends ago. I was the test
> > pilot for the virgin bird. After 2.5 Hrs. in light 'high-pressure day'
> > thermals in Central Oregon. All I needed to adjust was the rudder
> > peddle lenght. Greg Cole said I main a record for the most time aloft
> > with the least number of tows. @ tows and ~ 5.5 Hrs.
> >
> > I was able to walk the glider out to the runway by mayself, at 155 lbs
> > & wheels, why not, hook-up and go. The tow, flight and landing is very
> > easy. Controls are very responsive and light, but not the least bit
> > twitchy. In otherwards, no over sensitive pitching as with many other
> > gliders.
> >
> > I have been flying a Nimbus-II till the Sparrow hawk came around.
> > Although one is a mere 155 Lbs, while the other is well over 1,000
> > lbs. I found that transitining from one to the other was a non issue.
> > I have been flying powered aircraft and hang gliders sence 1972. It is
> > my honest openion that any one who has been flying moderate to high
> > performance flex wings and rigid wings will fell very much at home
> > with the Sparrow Hawk.
> >
> > One would think that such a light glider would blow about like a paper
> > bag and have potentual penitration problems. Not so, Creg Cole has
> > designed airfoils specifically for this light weight application. What
> > with wing-loading similar to any other standard class glider it feels
> > very solid and secure, even in big air. Its like a solid high
> > performance sports car. I can thermal, much like my hang glider, as
> > tight as I desire, taking advantage of small light, scratchy thermals.
> > Many that I would simply pass up in many other sail planes. I hope to
> > travel about with it to many other sites.
> >
> > Towing:
> > Our glider club said that as long as a Sparrow Hawk owner is a current
> > local club and SSA member, there will be no problems getting a tow and
> > have insurance cover the tow plane, but not the glider. We have a
> > Piper Pawnee. I am sure that the insurance situation will be the same
> > with many other clubs and comercial operations.
> >
> > I will be flying my Sparrow Hawk glider much more real soon and hope
> > to answer any questions one may have.
>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[BTIZ]

and then where do you stop... there are at least 2 other Euro built gliders
out there that could potentially fall into the same category.. but to my
knowledge... they are getting US experimental glider certifications when
imported..

and only the FAA can make the exception... if they want to list it as a tow
able under 91.309...

BT

"Slick" > wrote in message
...
> can't we make just this one exception for the sparrow hawk?

[Robertmudd1u]

>and then where do you stop... there are at least 2 other Euro built gliders
>out there that could potentially fall into the same category.. but to my
>knowledge... they are getting US experimental glider certifications when
>imported..

The Apis is too heavy to be a US ultralight. My 13meter Apis weighed in at
300lbs. Even the lighter weight Apis WR is too heavy for the US part 103
regulations. All models are being certified as Experimental.

Having to meet the strict weight limit of 155lbs for part 103 opens up the
potential for problems and costs. Any time you push the limits of a standard
that happens. It is all trade offs.

The Sport Pilot program offers little advantage as we do not need medical
certificates now. The changes needed on the Pipistrel Sinus and VIrus
motorgliders to meet Sport Pilot just dumb down the design; offering no
advantage in safety. We have to remove the controlable pitch prop and make the
feathering automatic rather than pilot selected. The cruise speed also needs to
be reduced.

Robert Mudd

[Tom Seim]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:<mgAmc.12210$k24.4171@fed1read01>...
> -FAR 91.309 specifically says "glider"
> -FAR 91.311 specifically says not to tow anything except as allowed by
> 91.309 unless you have a waiver
> -FAR 103 makes no reference to a glider, but to an "un powered ultra light"
> -A glider has rules for pilot certification and glider operations under
> parts 61 and 91
> -An unpowered ultralight is only governed by part 103 and has no pilot
> certification requirements
>
> Which is easier, for the tow plane and 8 tow pilots to get waivers under
> 91.311
> or one sparrowhawk pilot to get an experimental certification. The standard
> waiver under 91.311 is based on that pilot and that plane, not a blanket
> waiver on the plane with any pilot, although I suppose it could be written
> that way.
>
> As for.. well, the local FSDO says,.. could you get that in writing please?
> and I'll take it to our local FSDO for their interpretation.
>

Assuming your comments are directed at me, this is as far as I am
going to take it; the rest is up to you. Getting either a legal
ruling, towing waiver or experimental certificate will take time.
Contacting your local FSDO personally will give you regulatory
protection while the paperwork is in process.

Tom Seim

[BTIZ]

thanx Rob.. I was thinking the WR was advertised as Ultralight , but I did
not remember its specifications..

BT

"Robertmudd1u" > wrote in message
...
> >and then where do you stop... there are at least 2 other Euro built
gliders
> >out there that could potentially fall into the same category.. but to my
> >knowledge... they are getting US experimental glider certifications when
> >imported..
>
> The Apis is too heavy to be a US ultralight. My 13meter Apis weighed in at
> 300lbs. Even the lighter weight Apis WR is too heavy for the US part 103
> regulations. All models are being certified as Experimental.
>
> Having to meet the strict weight limit of 155lbs for part 103 opens up the
> potential for problems and costs. Any time you push the limits of a
standard
> that happens. It is all trade offs.
>
> The Sport Pilot program offers little advantage as we do not need medical
> certificates now. The changes needed on the Pipistrel Sinus and VIrus
> motorgliders to meet Sport Pilot just dumb down the design; offering no
> advantage in safety. We have to remove the controlable pitch prop and make
the
> feathering automatic rather than pilot selected. The cruise speed also
needs to
> be reduced.
>
> Robert Mudd

[Mark James Boyd]

Robertmudd1u > wrote:
>
>The Sport Pilot program offers little advantage as we do not need medical
>certificates now.

Sport pilot may not help, but sport aircraft should.
This is where the real benefit to gliding lies. Certifying
a kit as a sport aircraft looks like it would be
beneficial compared to experimental.

Details abound, but at a minimum, one might avoid the
limitations (in some cases for some operators severe)
of an experimental.

Sport pilot seems quite useful for transition pilots
(from another cat/class),
and essentially useless for anyone else...

--

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

[Patrick McLaughlin]

"Rene Lundgren" > wrote in message >...
> Patrick
>
> Congratulations with your new plane, and thank you for sharing the first
> flight experience with the NG.
>
> Look forward to read more about it in the near future.
> It seems the most important thing here, is all the rules&regulations BS, not
> the fact that a fellow glider wants to share a nice experience with us!!
>
> Anyway - happy landings.
>
> Rene

Dear Rene,

With all the replies over tow issues, it was nice to see that someone
was actually interested in the fact that yet another customer has and
is flying his new Sparrow Hawk glider. I fly at the drop of a hat. I
like to go up in scratchy days and try my luck and hope it turns into
skills. I did, however, fly today for about 1.5 Hrs. in rather
big-air. At no time did I feel that the 155 Lb. glider was too light.
With the exception of a little less visibility over hang gliders, I am
quite happy with my decision to get the Sparrow Hawk.