Update on the SparrowHawk and more.... [Archive]

David Bingham

June 8th 04, 06:34 PM

There has been a lot of interest recently on the
sailplane bulletin boards on the SparrowHawk due
to its uniqueness of having a real sailplane performance
and yet it does not have to be registered and can be
considered to be an ultralight under FAR part 103.
I have researched the implications of flying it as an
ultralight and here is what I have found. I know of no
towing operation who would not tow me in the
SparrowHawk. Its tows just like a regular glider at
65 knots and poses no problems behind a Pawnee
or other tow plane. How about liability insurance? I
read that some tow operations require glider liability
insurance but cannot confirm this. It is my perception
that tow operations tow pilots and their gliders in that
order. If a pilot is a menace to himself and others he
doesn't get towed regardless of what glider he wants
to be towed in. Nevertheless, if I
am a member of USHGA I am covered by their
policy to $1,000,000.00 if the NON POWERED
glider conforms to FAR part 103. I have spoken
to several officers and former officers of USHGA
and they agree with this interpretation. What a
deal! Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
Now some caveats. Could anyone go and buy
a SparrowHawk and get a tow? No! Any respectable
tow operation will probably require a glider license,
or at least a solo signoff from a CFIG (glider instructor).
For those of you who are interested go to www.ushga.org
and then go to the Member Handbook. Click on
Pilot Liability Insurance. There you will find the USHGA
liability policy. Read it. There are several interesting
bits of info to be gleaned.
The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
and ultralights and this suggests to me that it is about
time the SSA and USHGA get serious (I know there have
been discussions but they have come to nought) and try
and figure out how to deal with this new generation of
gliders. USHGA has done and is doing an excellent job
of self regulating ultralight gliders, pilot training, safety
etc. The SSA is hot on comps, badges, meets, etc.,
but in my opinion, almost irrelevant concerning safety
and most other issues. An example: why hasn't the
SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
saved many lives (option on the SparrowHawk). There
are other examples. I throw this out for discussion having
been a member of both organizations for many years that
SSA has to review the reasons for its being which I
find so lacking.
Dave

Brian Iten

June 8th 04, 08:33 PM

I have been off for a while and was wondering if someone
could clarify something for me. For a SparrowHawk to
be classified, does the aircraft have to weigh less
than 155 pounds? I am not sure if this is the correct
number but I thought it was around there. My next question
is that does that weight have to be prior to adding
all the goodies or after adding all the goodies. What
happens to it's classification if it weighs more than
the maximum ultralight weight? Is there a maximum ultralight
weight? Probably more questions later but I will start
with these.
Brian

BTIZ

June 8th 04, 09:11 PM

I personally know of a couple of operations (maybe 3) that will not tow a
SparrowHawk of the ultralight variety.. It needs to have an airworthiness
certificate deeming it a "Glider" with an N-number registration and a
certificated "glider" pilot flying, not an "unpowered ultralight.

If most tow pilots are aware, they should know they are only certified under
91.309 to tow "gliders", not "unpowered ultralights"... yes.. insurance
coverage is an issue.. and the tow plane's insurance is also in jeopardy..
as it is not coverage to tow an "ultralight"...

I'm sure for the best interest of aviation, SSA and USHGA should get
together on this and at least get a waiver to cover the Sparrowhawk and
other similar aircraft.

It may be possible to get an endorsement under 91.311 to tow the
Sparrowhawk.. but it is a specific endorsement for that tow pilot.

Rest assured, someone showing up with a SparrowHawk, under USHGA rules with
no "glider" pilot rating should not expect a tow from me.

BT

"David Bingham" > wrote in message
om...
> There has been a lot of interest recently on the
> sailplane bulletin boards on the SparrowHawk due
> to its uniqueness of having a real sailplane performance
> and yet it does not have to be registered and can be
> considered to be an ultralight under FAR part 103.
> I have researched the implications of flying it as an
> ultralight and here is what I have found. I know of no
> towing operation who would not tow me in the
> SparrowHawk. Its tows just like a regular glider at
> 65 knots and poses no problems behind a Pawnee
> or other tow plane. How about liability insurance? I
> read that some tow operations require glider liability
> insurance but cannot confirm this. It is my perception
> that tow operations tow pilots and their gliders in that
> order. If a pilot is a menace to himself and others he
> doesn't get towed regardless of what glider he wants
> to be towed in. Nevertheless, if I
> am a member of USHGA I am covered by their
> policy to $1,000,000.00 if the NON POWERED
> glider conforms to FAR part 103. I have spoken
> to several officers and former officers of USHGA
> and they agree with this interpretation. What a
> deal! Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
> Now some caveats. Could anyone go and buy
> a SparrowHawk and get a tow? No! Any respectable
> tow operation will probably require a glider license,
> or at least a solo signoff from a CFIG (glider instructor).
> For those of you who are interested go to www.ushga.org
> and then go to the Member Handbook. Click on
> Pilot Liability Insurance. There you will find the USHGA
> liability policy. Read it. There are several interesting
> bits of info to be gleaned.
> The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
> and ultralights and this suggests to me that it is about
> time the SSA and USHGA get serious (I know there have
> been discussions but they have come to nought) and try
> and figure out how to deal with this new generation of
> gliders. USHGA has done and is doing an excellent job
> of self regulating ultralight gliders, pilot training, safety
> etc. The SSA is hot on comps, badges, meets, etc.,
> but in my opinion, almost irrelevant concerning safety
> and most other issues. An example: why hasn't the
> SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
> saved many lives (option on the SparrowHawk). There
> are other examples. I throw this out for discussion having
> been a member of both organizations for many years that
> SSA has to review the reasons for its being which I
> find so lacking.
> Dave

Michael Stringfellow

June 8th 04, 09:38 PM

"snip....Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?

If you want to fly with other aircraft, especially in formation flight, you
might have to. Sailplanes are already treated like poor second cousins to
the aviation community and ultralight aircraft and hang gliders are even
lower on the pecking order.

The Sparrowhawk's new category of ultralight sailplanes could fit a viable
niche, especially with a US manufacturer. But you'll probably get quicker
acceptance (and more people to tow you) if you stick an "N" number on it and
carry your pilot certificate.

> The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
> and ultralights

Which is exactly why you are going to have problems, especially in the US!

Mike

ASW 20 WA

Robertmudd1u

June 8th 04, 11:46 PM

> An example: why hasn't the
>SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
>saved many lives

The market, which buys gliders which the SSA does not, has shown a distinct
lack of interest in recovery chutes. I believe Schempp-Hirth offers a chute as
an option for some of its gliders. I wonder how many they have sold, or even if
interest warranted certifcation?

Because most gliders are made and certified in Europe any installation would
have to meet European Certification Standards. Several years ago Hanko
Streifeneder fitted a Discus with such a recovery parachute. He actually did
several in flight deployments. The certifying authorities decided that the
system had to be tested up to VNE. At some point Herr Streifeneder wisely
decided to stop flight testing. I think it was when the glider almost fell back
into the deploying parachute.

Having a recovery parachute on board is no guarantee that you are safe.

Has anyone tested the Sparrowhawk with a parachute deployment? What testing has
been done?

If you want a touring type motorglider with a rescue parachute check out the
Sinus or Virus from Pipistrel. There have been two in flight deployments of the
rescue parachute, with no serious injury to the occupants. That is real world
testing.

Robert Mudd

BTIZ

June 9th 04, 12:27 AM

> The Sparrowhawk's new category of ultralight sailplanes could fit a viable
> niche, especially with a US manufacturer. But you'll probably get quicker
> acceptance (and more people to tow you) if you stick an "N" number on it
and
> carry your pilot certificate.

Part 103 covering ultralights does not mention "ultralight sailplanes"..
they are "unpowered ultralights" .. and not even a "Sailplane"... which
further compounds the confusion on the issue..

I agree with you.. I like the "sparrowhawk" concept.. and if at all
possible.. when I get mine.. it will have an n-number..

BT

Nyal Williams

June 9th 04, 03:07 AM

> The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
>and ultralights ...

How does it straddle this border if it is an ultralight?
There are so-called 'fat ultralights' that are overweight,
are carrying more fuel than permitted, have a higher
stall speed than permitted, and have a faster 'cruise
speed' than permitted. Any of these makes this unit
technically an aircraft and itis thus illegal. Some
of these same aiarcraft are registered and have an
N-number.

I am aware of a case in which a kit-builder tried to
fly the same aircraft both as registered aircraft and
unregistered ultralight by simply removing the N-number
on occasion. I'm guessing this was found to be fradulent
when the machine was involved in a fatality.

Now, if that machine was forbidden to cross the border,
how can the Sparrowhawk straddle it. It's citizenship
must be declared for one camp or the other on a unit
by unit basis. This is not new; look at the Kolb ultralight
kits. They are flown both ways, as are other powered
ultralights.

Eric Greenwell

June 9th 04, 06:24 AM

Michael Stringfellow wrote:

> "snip....Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
>
> If you want to fly with other aircraft, especially in formation flight, you
> might have to.

Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean thermalling with other gliders,
or being towed?

> Sailplanes are already treated like poor second cousins to
> the aviation community and ultralight aircraft and hang gliders are even
> lower on the pecking order.

You must be hanging around the wrong "communities"! The ones I talk to
are always grinning and saying "I've always wanted to do that", or "It
must be so quiet up there", and "You flew 100 miles in it!?", just about
anywhere I assemble mine.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

plasticguy

June 9th 04, 01:45 PM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Stringfellow wrote:
>
> > "snip....Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
> >
> > If you want to fly with other aircraft, especially in formation flight,
you
> > might have to.
>
> Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean thermalling with other gliders,
> or being towed?
>

If you read part 103, you will find a requirement to in 103.13
as follows

§103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so
as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all
aircraft.

(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a
collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.

(c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered
ultralights.

I think this prohibits gaggle flying with registered sailplanes because if
you are there, a collision hazard, however small, exists.

It also places the final duty to avoid on the ultralight. If you are
circling FDH (fat dumb and happy) with a bunch of your buddies and some
moron enters the thermal circling the wrong way without a radio and you hit
each other, it is YOUR FAULT because you failed to yield to the registered
aircraft. Another interesting item in 103 is the requirement that it be
operated only under 103. That means once you go part 91 with it, you can't
go back. Converting back and forth isn't allowed.

§103.3 Inspection requirements.

(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon
request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to
determine the applicability of this part.

(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the
Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject
only to the provisions of this part.

Part 103 is short and a must read if you are to understand the rules. ALSO
Unpowered ultralights don't get the weight of a BRS waived. If you install
it, it counts against the 155 pound limit.

Scott.

COLIN LAMB

June 9th 04, 02:01 PM

FAR 91.309 does not define a glider to be an aircraft that has an N number.

I have not researched the matter, but under FAR 1.2 General definitions,
glider is defined as "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."

There may be other language that disqualifies the Sparrowhawk, but it is a
glider by FAR definition.

Colin

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/04

Michael Stringfellow

June 9th 04, 05:15 PM

Eric:

I meant both. There are specific FARs for flying in close proximity, both
towing and, presumably, thermalling. However, these all refer to aircraft
or gliders, not ultralights.

It also seems that the FAA does not regard "ultralight vehicles" as
aircraft, so my interpretation would be that towing an ultralight by an
aircraft is not specifically permitted by the FARs. I thnk the same would go
for formation flying, including thermalling. Even if not forbidden, I bet
if you ask the question, the answer would be "no!"

(I'm not saying these rules are correct or sensible - I've thermalled safely
with an ultralight sailplane and hang gliders and I'm sure the Sparrowhawk
is safer to tow than some of the flying matchwood that's out there- just
trying to figure out the rules.)

And I have to agree that most pilots don't think badly of gliders, I was
really referring to the local, state and federal infrastructures, which seem
geared to airplanes - the bigger and more engines, the better! I and my
colleagues have landed out at many private strips and have never been made
to feel unwelcome. On one occasion, a retired airline pilot thrust a cold
beer into my hand as I stepped out of the cockpit onto his fromt lawn at an
private airpark!

Mike

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Stringfellow wrote:
>
> > "snip....Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
> >
> > If you want to fly with other aircraft, especially in formation flight,
you
> > might have to.
>
> Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean thermalling with other gliders,
> or being towed?
>
> > Sailplanes are already treated like poor second cousins to
> > the aviation community and ultralight aircraft and hang gliders are even
> > lower on the pecking order.
>
> You must be hanging around the wrong "communities"! The ones I talk to
> are always grinning and saying "I've always wanted to do that", or "It
> must be so quiet up there", and "You flew 100 miles in it!?", just about
> anywhere I assemble mine.
>
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

Timbro

June 9th 04, 06:07 PM

(David Bingham) wrote in message >...
> There has been a lot of interest recently on the
> sailplane bulletin boards on the SparrowHawk due
> to its uniqueness of having a real sailplane performance
> and yet it does not have to be registered and can be
> considered to be an ultralight under FAR part 103.
> I have researched the implications of flying it as an
> ultralight and here is what I have found. I know of no
> towing operation who would not tow me in the
> SparrowHawk. Its tows just like a regular glider at
> 65 knots and poses no problems behind a Pawnee
> or other tow plane. How about liability insurance? I
> read that some tow operations require glider liability
> insurance but cannot confirm this. It is my perception
> that tow operations tow pilots and their gliders in that
> order. If a pilot is a menace to himself and others he
> doesn't get towed regardless of what glider he wants
> to be towed in. Nevertheless, if I
> am a member of USHGA I am covered by their
> policy to $1,000,000.00 if the NON POWERED
> glider conforms to FAR part 103. I have spoken
> to several officers and former officers of USHGA
> and they agree with this interpretation. What a
> deal! Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
> Now some caveats. Could anyone go and buy
> a SparrowHawk and get a tow? No! Any respectable
> tow operation will probably require a glider license,
> or at least a solo signoff from a CFIG (glider instructor).
> For those of you who are interested go to www.ushga.org
> and then go to the Member Handbook. Click on
> Pilot Liability Insurance. There you will find the USHGA
> liability policy. Read it. There are several interesting
> bits of info to be gleaned.
> The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
> and ultralights and this suggests to me that it is about
> time the SSA and USHGA get serious (I know there have
> been discussions but they have come to nought) and try
> and figure out how to deal with this new generation of
> gliders. USHGA has done and is doing an excellent job
> of self regulating ultralight gliders, pilot training, safety
> etc. The SSA is hot on comps, badges, meets, etc.,
> but in my opinion, almost irrelevant concerning safety
> and most other issues. An example: why hasn't the
> SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
> saved many lives (option on the SparrowHawk). There
> are other examples. I throw this out for discussion having
> been a member of both organizations for many years that
> SSA has to review the reasons for its being which I
> find so lacking.
> Dave

How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.

Tim
SES

Michael Stringfellow

June 9th 04, 06:20 PM

Per my earlier posting, the FARs for towing refer to gliders, which are a
class of "aircraft". The FAA regards the Sparrowhawk as an "ultralight
vehicle" and not an aircraft. hence the Sparrowhawk cannot comply with the
FAR, whatever the weight and link requirements.

(Again, not a value judgement, just trying to interpret the rules).

Mike

"Timbro" > wrote in message
om...
> (David Bingham) wrote in message
>...
> > There has been a lot of interest recently on the
> > sailplane bulletin boards on the SparrowHawk due
> > to its uniqueness of having a real sailplane performance
> > and yet it does not have to be registered and can be
> > considered to be an ultralight under FAR part 103.
> > I have researched the implications of flying it as an
> > ultralight and here is what I have found. I know of no
> > towing operation who would not tow me in the
> > SparrowHawk. Its tows just like a regular glider at
> > 65 knots and poses no problems behind a Pawnee
> > or other tow plane. How about liability insurance? I
> > read that some tow operations require glider liability
> > insurance but cannot confirm this. It is my perception
> > that tow operations tow pilots and their gliders in that
> > order. If a pilot is a menace to himself and others he
> > doesn't get towed regardless of what glider he wants
> > to be towed in. Nevertheless, if I
> > am a member of USHGA I am covered by their
> > policy to $1,000,000.00 if the NON POWERED
> > glider conforms to FAR part 103. I have spoken
> > to several officers and former officers of USHGA
> > and they agree with this interpretation. What a
> > deal! Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
> > Now some caveats. Could anyone go and buy
> > a SparrowHawk and get a tow? No! Any respectable
> > tow operation will probably require a glider license,
> > or at least a solo signoff from a CFIG (glider instructor).
> > For those of you who are interested go to www.ushga.org
> > and then go to the Member Handbook. Click on
> > Pilot Liability Insurance. There you will find the USHGA
> > liability policy. Read it. There are several interesting
> > bits of info to be gleaned.
> > The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
> > and ultralights and this suggests to me that it is about
> > time the SSA and USHGA get serious (I know there have
> > been discussions but they have come to nought) and try
> > and figure out how to deal with this new generation of
> > gliders. USHGA has done and is doing an excellent job
> > of self regulating ultralight gliders, pilot training, safety
> > etc. The SSA is hot on comps, badges, meets, etc.,
> > but in my opinion, almost irrelevant concerning safety
> > and most other issues. An example: why hasn't the
> > SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
> > saved many lives (option on the SparrowHawk). There
> > are other examples. I throw this out for discussion having
> > been a member of both organizations for many years that
> > SSA has to review the reasons for its being which I
> > find so lacking.
> > Dave
>
> How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
> It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
> 2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.
>
> Tim
> SES

Eric Greenwell

June 9th 04, 07:44 PM

plasticguy wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Michael Stringfellow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"snip....Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
>>>
>>>If you want to fly with other aircraft, especially in formation flight,
>
> you
>
>>>might have to.
>>
>>Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean thermalling with other gliders,
>>or being towed?
>>
>
>
>
> If you read part 103, you will find a requirement to in 103.13
> as follows
>
> §103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
>
> (a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so
> as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all
> aircraft.
>
> (b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a
> collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.
>
> (c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered
> ultralights.
>
>
>
> I think this prohibits gaggle flying with registered sailplanes because if
> you are there, a collision hazard, however small, exists.

That's an extremely stringent interpretation of "collision hazard".
Thank goodness the FAA doesn't use it in general, or only airliners
would be flying. I doubt that the FAA uses your interpretation for
ultralights, since we have powered ultralights flying from our airport
(and many others), where they are clearly a greater collision hazard to
pattern traffic than a glider thermalling with other gliders.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell

June 9th 04, 07:52 PM

Timbro wrote:

>
> How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
> It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
> 2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.
>
> Tim
> SES

Perhaps I misunderstand your question, but it complies with the
requirements like any other glider. The SparrowHawks I've seen towed use
a weak link and the standard towrope used by the heavier gliders. It's a
light weight link, of course, as you'd expect. You could also switch to
light weight towrope, but the weak link is usually the most convenient.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

COLIN LAMB

June 10th 04, 01:14 AM

103.13(a) states that ultralights shall "... yield the right-of-way to all
aircraft."

91.113 (b) "... When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the
right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pas
over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear." Although "well clear" is
not defined in the definitions, it is more than clear and may affect the
separation distance allowed in a thermal.

There are also limitations placed upon ultralights under 103.17 prohibiting
operation in certain airspace unless prior authorization from the ATC
facility has been received. These limitations are different than for part
91 gliders.

Colin

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/04

Mike

June 10th 04, 01:42 AM

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Timbro wrote:
>
> >
> > How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
> > It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
> > 2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.
> >
> > Tim
> > SES
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand your question, but it complies with the
> requirements like any other glider. The SparrowHawks I've seen towed use
> a weak link and the standard towrope used by the heavier gliders. It's a
> light weight link, of course, as you'd expect. You could also switch to
> light weight towrope, but the weak link is usually the most convenient.

Isn't there a requirement for a weak link at the tow plane also or is
that just a recommendation? Thanks. Mike

Vaughn

June 10th 04, 02:31 AM

"Michael Stringfellow" > wrote in message
news:uFHxc.5686$K45.1139@fed1read02...
> Per my earlier posting, the FARs for towing refer to gliders, which are a
> class of "aircraft". The FAA regards the Sparrowhawk as an "ultralight
> vehicle" and not an aircraft. hence the Sparrowhawk cannot comply with the
> FAR, whatever the weight and link requirements.
>
> (Again, not a value judgement, just trying to interpret the rules).

Then read them (said with a smile). FAR Part One defines "aircraft" as "a
device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." That would
seem to include the SparrowHawk. True, part 103 defines something called an
"ultralight vehicle" but the towplane is in no way governed by part 103. Let us
not invent regulations that do not exist, we have enough already.

The possibility of operating the SparrowHawk as an ultralight vehicle seems
to be a cornerstone of its marketing strategy but I think that is not seen as an
advantage to already licensed sailplane pilots. Further, if a pilot gets the
training necessary to fly the thing safely, getting licensed is not an issue. I
do, however, like the concept of its easy rigging and ground handling.

This thread reminds me of that old movie "Groundhog Day". It just keep
happening; again and again and...

Vaughn

Eric Greenwell

June 10th 04, 02:50 AM

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> 103.13(a) states that ultralights shall "... yield the right-of-way
> to all aircraft."
>
> 91.113 (b) "... When a rule of this section gives another aircraft
> the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may
> not pas over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear." Although
> "well clear" is not defined in the definitions, it is more than clear
> and may affect the separation distance allowed in a thermal.

So you are saying an ultralight pilot does have to know comply with the
FARs? Or might "right of way" be interpreted less strictly in the
context of part 103? Like, maybe, just "get out of the way"? I sure
haven't seen any hang glider pilots leaving their thermal or ridge
because of me!

>
> There are also limitations placed upon ultralights under 103.17
> prohibiting operation in certain airspace unless prior authorization
> from the ATC facility has been received. These limitations are
> different than for part 91 gliders.

"§ 103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B,
Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the
surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that
person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction
over that airspace."

Except for the Class D airspace, this doesn't sound any different than
what I have to do to get into A,B, and C airspace. What might be
different is chances entry will be authorized. Personally, I use those
airspaces quite rarely, so it would have only a small practical effect.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell

June 10th 04, 03:02 AM

Mike wrote:

> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
>>Timbro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
>>>It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
>>>2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>SES
>>
>>Perhaps I misunderstand your question, but it complies with the
>>requirements like any other glider. The SparrowHawks I've seen towed use
>>a weak link and the standard towrope used by the heavier gliders. It's a
>>light weight link, of course, as you'd expect. You could also switch to
>>light weight towrope, but the weak link is usually the most convenient.
>
>
> Isn't there a requirement for a weak link at the tow plane also or is
> that just a recommendation? Thanks. Mike

If there isn't a weak link at the glider end, then there must be a weak
link at the towplane end. See CFR 91.309. It's only required at one end,
fortunately for the operators using retractable towropes.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

plasticguy

June 10th 04, 01:38 PM

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>

> Then read them (said with a smile). FAR Part One defines "aircraft"
as "a
> device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." That
would
> seem to include the SparrowHawk. True, part 103 defines something called
an
> "ultralight vehicle" but the towplane is in no way governed by part 103.
Let us
> not invent regulations that do not exist, we have enough already.
>
> Vaughn
>

Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
classes of Aircraft are certified.
Part 103 covers things that fly , uncertified. Don't try to misconstrue
writing of the laws that predate the existance
of Part 103. 103 was added to eliminate the confusion in terms and to get
the FEDS out of regulating ultralights.
I agree that we shouldn't create laws that don't exist. But the facts are
that under 91.309, you can't
tow a Sparrowhawk without a waiver because it is not a glider conforming
with part 91 unless it carries an N reg number.
This is no different than trying to tow a Swift, Tempest, Superfloater or
similar bird.

Scott.

Vaughn Simon

June 10th 04, 06:45 PM

"plasticguy" > wrote in message
...
>
OK Scott, strictly in the interest of getting this thing right, I honestly
don't want to get anybody's dander up.
>
> Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
> classes of Aircraft are certified.

Further study where? Can you give us a reference?

> Part 103 covers things that fly , uncertified. Don't try to misconstrue
> writing of the laws that predate the existance
> of Part 103. 103 was added to eliminate the confusion in terms and to get
> the FEDS out of regulating ultralights.
> I agree that we shouldn't create laws that don't exist.

>But the facts are that under 91.309, you can't
> tow a Sparrowhawk without a waiver because it is not a glider conforming
> with part 91 unless it carries an N reg number.

Perhaps I am dense; here is part 91.309 in its entirety; please indicate the
part where is says that the glider being towed must be registered.

Sec. 91.309

Towing: Gliders.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft towing a glider unless--
(1) The pilot in command of the towing aircraft is qualified under Sec.
61.69 of this chapter;
(2) The towing aircraft is equipped with a tow-hitch of a kind, and
installed in a manner, that is approved by the Administrator;
(3) The towline used has breaking strength not less than 80 percent of the
maximum certificated operating weight of the glider and not more than twice
this operating weight. However, the towline used may have a breaking
strength more than twice the maximum certificated operating weight of the
glider if--
(i) A safety link is installed at the point of attachment of the towline to
the glider with a breaking strength not less than 80 percent of the maximum
certificated operating weight of the glider and not greater than twice this
operating weight.
(ii) A safety link is installed at the point of attachment of the towline to
the towing aircraft with a breaking strength greater, but not more than 25
percent greater, than that of the safety link at the towed glider end of the
towline and not greater than twice the maximum certificated operating weight
of the glider;
(4) Before conducting any towing operation within the lateral boundaries of
the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace
designated for an airport, or before making each towing flight within such
controlled airspace if required by ATC, the pilot in command notifies the
control tower. If a control tower does not exist or is not in operation, the
pilot in command must notify the FAA flight service station serving that
controlled airspace before conducting any towing operations in that
airspace; and
(5) The pilots of the towing aircraft and the glider have agreed upon a
general course of action, including takeoff and release signals, airspeeds,
and emergency procedures for each pilot.
(b) No pilot of a civil aircraft may intentionally release a towline, after
release of a glider, in a manner that endangers the life or property of
another.

Respectfully;
Vaughn

plasticguy

June 11th 04, 05:02 AM

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>> OK Scott, strictly in the interest of getting this thing right, I
honestly
> don't want to get anybody's dander up.
> >
> > Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
> > classes of Aircraft are certified.
>
> Further study where? Can you give us a reference?
>

Hi Vaughn.
Lets try this. I hope it helps......

The FAA sees 2 things in the air. Aircraft and Ultralight vehicles.

Far 103 defines ultralights

Far 91.1 says that part 91 covers operations of AIRCRAFT and specifically
excludes part 103 vehicles.

FAR 91.203 says no aircraft may be operated unless it has a current
airworthiness certificate and is registered.

FAR 91.309 says that weak links and tow ropes are specified by the maximum
certificated operating weight
of the glider. (This data is found on the airworthiness certificate)

91.309 says that ONLY GLIDERS (aircraft conforming to part 91 including
registration and certification requirements)
may be towed.

91.311 says that anything else to be towed (undefined stuff like banners,
ultralights, barges) by an aircraft
may only be done by waiver from the administrator.

I hope this makes it clear that a Sparrowhawk, operating under part 103,
does not fall under 91.309,
but instead falls under 91.311 REQUIRING a waiver to tow.

Sparrowhawks operating under part 91, may be towed just like any other
glider.

Scott.

Michael McNulty

June 11th 04, 05:14 AM

"plasticguy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 91.309 says that ONLY GLIDERS (aircraft conforming to part 91 including
> registration and certification requirements)
> may be towed.
>
> 91.311 says that anything else to be towed (undefined stuff like banners,
> ultralights, barges) by an aircraft
> may only be done by waiver from the administrator.

You're inventing the stuff inside your parens. The Sparrowhawk meets the
explicit legal definition of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.

Jack

June 11th 04, 05:37 AM

Michael McNulty wrote:

> The Sparrowhawk meets the explicit legal definition
> of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.

A reasonable definition, yes. A legal definition is another thing, especially
when it comes from an administrative source such as the FAA.

Do we have case on point to use as a precedent, or are we just chasing our tails?

Jack

Eric Greenwell

June 11th 04, 06:27 AM

Jack wrote:
> Michael McNulty wrote:
>
> > The Sparrowhawk meets the explicit legal definition
> > of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.
>
> A reasonable definition, yes. A legal definition is another thing,
> especially when it comes from an administrative source such as the FAA.
>
> Do we have case on point to use as a precedent, or are we just chasing
> our tails?

There are soaring operations quite happy to tow the SparrowHawk, having
satisfied themselves it is both legal and insured to do so, which
establishes a precedent satisfactory to me.

Not exactly a precedent, but Tom Seim reported this info in a May 6 2004
posting):

> 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.

So, I do think there is some tail-chasing going on. I suggest people
adamant about their interpretations do as Tom did, contact their FSDO,
then report the result.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Michael Stringfellow

June 11th 04, 08:09 PM

Mike McN - I disagree with your interpretation. In my reading of the regs,
an ultralight vehicle cannot be classified as any category of aircraft, even
if it looks like a glider. Since there is no minimum weight for a glider,
you can certainly register one like the Sparrowhawk, but then it becomes a
glider (a category of aircraft) and ceases its life as an ultralight! It
then has to meet all the appropriate regulations. The FAA is quite clear
about this and has published several notes to this effect. This is also
contrary to the interpretation of Eric's FSDO.

Towing of gliders is clearly described in the FARs, whereas towing of
ultralights is not. Presumably the drafters of the regulations never
considered the possibility that an unlicensed unregistered ultralight would
want to be towed by an airplane.

It's also quite clear that the FARs have some ambiguity, since we can't
agree on their interpretation. Since towing ultralights is a gray area that
needs clarification, your local friendly FSDO is the place to get this.

You might find, however, that interpretation of the FARs varies between
interpretors!

I'd want to get something in writing!

Mike

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Jack wrote:
> > Michael McNulty wrote:
> >
> > > The Sparrowhawk meets the explicit legal definition
> > > of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.
> >
> > A reasonable definition, yes. A legal definition is another thing,
> > especially when it comes from an administrative source such as the FAA.
> >
> > Do we have case on point to use as a precedent, or are we just chasing
> > our tails?
>
> There are soaring operations quite happy to tow the SparrowHawk, having
> satisfied themselves it is both legal and insured to do so, which
> establishes a precedent satisfactory to me.
>
> Not exactly a precedent, but Tom Seim reported this info in a May 6 2004
> posting):
>
> > 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.
>
> So, I do think there is some tail-chasing going on. I suggest people
> adamant about their interpretations do as Tom did, contact their FSDO,
> then report the result.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

plasticguy

June 11th 04, 08:22 PM

"Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
news:Wkayc.11473$fZ1.2212@fed1read03...
> You're inventing the stuff inside your parens. The Sparrowhawk meets the
> explicit legal definition of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.
>
>

Hi Mike.
Please read this to cover a part 103 Sparrowhawk, not a part 23/91
Sparrowhawk, which is a normal "sailplane" as we recognise them.

I put the stuff in parens because I wrote it. But that doesn't mean that
it is incorrect. Far part 1 defines a glider as something that flys that is
unpowered. It makes no references to certified or non-certified. So yes,
the
Sparrowhawk is a glider in broad terms. NOW about it being covered as
a towable object under far 91.309. I contend that it isn't. That's because
all of Part 91 is written around certified aircraft. The reference to
glider found in 91.309
is constrained by the definitions in part 91 that limit its scope to
certified aircraft.
See the limitations in 91.203 that say all aircraft operated must have a
certificate of
airworthiness. Registration is also required.
Now since the Sparrowhawk under part 103 is specifically excluded from part
91
in 91.1 you cannot apply 91.309 to it. SSSOOO 91.311 becomes the FAR in
play
if you wish to tow it. This specifically states that a WAIVER IS REQUIRED.

I hope this removes any lack of clarity.

Scott.

Paul Repacholi

June 12th 04, 12:54 AM

"Michael Stringfellow" > writes:

> Mike McN - I disagree with your interpretation. In my reading of
> the regs, an ultralight vehicle cannot be classified as any category
> of aircraft, even if it looks like a glider. Since there is no
> minimum weight for a glider, you can certainly register one like the
> Sparrowhawk, but then it becomes a glider (a category of aircraft)
> and ceases its life as an ultralight!

The preamble of the FARs includes the DEFINITION of a glider, and the
Sparrowhawk meets that 100%. As you said, there is no minimum weight.
It IS a glider, that is the LAW. Interpretation not needed.

FAR 91 and friends talks about towing a GLIDER, *not*, Glider other
than an Ultralight Glider, so it covers ALL gliders.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

plasticguy

June 12th 04, 01:45 AM

"Paul Repacholi" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Stringfellow" > writes:
>
> FAR 91 and friends talks about towing a GLIDER, *not*, Glider other
> than an Ultralight Glider, so it covers ALL gliders.
>
> --
> Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> West Australia 6076
> comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
> EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Paul.
Far 91 specifically excludes part 103 aircraft in FAR 91.1
All references in Part 91 are to certified aircraft carrying
airworthiness certificates. The reference to Glider in FAR 91
has been narrowed by FAR 91.203 to be a certified aircraft.
A glider is a class of aircraft, anything flying under FAR103
is an AIR VEHICLE, not an aircraft.
I know things can be confusing looking at it from the bottom of the world
(smile) but if you read what is written and not what you want to see, you'll
be better off.
This request for info from theFEDS might help.

Here is my request to the FAA:
>Subject: Regulations
>From: Bob Comperini >
>To: FAA
>Date: 12/18/1998 8:56 AM

>Greetings,

>I am an active ultralight flight instructor with the United States
>Ultralight Association.

>As you know, ultralights are regulated by FAR Part 103.

>Quite often, I get asked the question whether or not ultralights are also
>subject to other FAR's (such as Part 91, VFR rules, etc.). This question
>comes up a lot because in FAR Part 103, ultralights are defined as
>"vehicles" (not "aircraft"). Other regulations, including Part 91, talk
>about "aircraft".

>Some people think this means that ultralights are exempt from any portion
>of this regulation, solely because of the words "aircraft" .vs. "vehicle".

>When I train students, I make them very much aware of Part 91, and tell
>them that pertinent parts of this regulation should also be followed (even
>if we're not required to), for safety reasons, if nothing else. (As an
>example, 91.159 - VFR Cruising altitudes).

>Can you give me any guidance (or references) where I can get these terms
>("vehicle" and "aircraft") clarified? Why did Part 103 call ultralights
>"vehicles"? How would you answer the question of whether or not Part 103
>ultralights are "exempt" from any other FAR?

>Thanks in advance.
Here is the response I received from the FAA:
>Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:34:47 -0500
>From: >
>To: >
>Subject: Re: Regulation

>>>Can you give me any guidance (or references) where I can get these terms
>("vehicle" and "aircraft") clarified?<<

Sure. The term "aircraft is defined in FAR Part 1. It says, "Aircraft"
means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
The term "vehicle" and "ultralight" is not defined in FAR Part 1.

One could interpret the definition of "aircraft" to also include
ultralights
since they are indeed a device intended to be used for flight. But, in the
preamble to the original FAR 103 (as published in the Federal Register on
Sept.
2, 1982) we state that ultralights would not be considered aircraft for
purposes
of airworthiness certification and registration nor would their operators be
subject to the same pilot certification and operational requirements as
aircraft
operators. FAR 103 does not require airman/aircraft certification or vehicle
registration but, rather, is premised on the absolute minimum regulation
necessary to ensure safety in the public interest. We used the word
"vehicle"
since the common meaning of the word is a device or structure for
transporting persons or things. We purposely did not want the word
aircraft used in the context of describing an ultralight.

>>>Some people think this means that ultralights are exempt from any
>portion of this regulation, solely because of the words "aircraft" .vs.
>"vehicle".<<

And they're right. Ultralight operators are *NOT* subject to any
regulation other than FAR Part 103. That regulation contains all the
operational conditions and limitations necessary to ensure safety in
the public interest. Part 91, as you point out, pertains to aircraft.
In fact 91.1(a) specifically excludes ultralights. That section states:
"(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and Sec.
91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft
(other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned
free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and
ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this
chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3
autical miles of the U.S. coast."

I don't disagree with you teaching ultralight operators about other FARs
such as 91, 135, etc. Even though 103 is the only regulation that applies
to them, some basic knowledge of other regulations probably doesn't hurt.
Ditto other FAA documents such as the AIM, etc.

Best Regards

Rick Cremer, Aviation Safety Inspector (Ops and AWS)The FAA has gone on
record here in print.Scott.

Jack

June 12th 04, 03:03 AM

Paul Repacholi wrote:

> The preamble of the FARs includes the DEFINITION of a glider, and the
> Sparrowhawk meets that 100%. As you said, there is no minimum weight.
> It IS a glider, that is the LAW. Interpretation not needed.

That's the funniest thing I have heard so far today!

Before we even begin to debate whether or not interpretation is needed, perhaps
the whole of applicable law should be read and understood. Once that's done,
your views on interpretation may indeed change -- but they will still be irrelevant.

This tow pilot will wait for something a bit more concrete, thank you, like
actually going to the source and getting it in writing. I'm surprised the SSA
has not done that yet. They have a wider responsibility than that which they may
feel toward manufacturers of new domestic glider designs, as deeply as we all
wish to see these designs succeed .

Jack

Michael McNulty

June 12th 04, 03:09 AM

"plasticguy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
> news:Wkayc.11473$fZ1.2212@fed1read03...
> > You're inventing the stuff inside your parens. The Sparrowhawk meets
the
> > explicit legal definition of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.
> >
> >
>
> Hi Mike.
> Please read this to cover a part 103 Sparrowhawk, not a part 23/91
> Sparrowhawk, which is a normal "sailplane" as we recognise them.
>
> I put the stuff in parens because I wrote it. But that doesn't mean that
> it is incorrect. Far part 1 defines a glider as something that flys that
is
> unpowered. It makes no references to certified or non-certified. So yes,
> the
> Sparrowhawk is a glider in broad terms. NOW about it being covered as
> a towable object under far 91.309. I contend that it isn't. That's
because
> all of Part 91 is written around certified aircraft. The reference to
> glider found in 91.309
> is constrained by the definitions in part 91 that limit its scope to
> certified aircraft.

The Sparrowhawk is a glider in the legal language of the FAA. Any reference
that says "glider", not "certified glider" or aircraft includes the
Sparrowhawk. The word "aircraft" is never used to reference the towed
glider in this section. The gotcha, however, would seem to be that the tow
line strength is tied to the "maximum certificated weight of the glider".
The 155 lbs might be construed to be this weight, but perhpas not.

Part 91.309 regulates the (certified) towing aircraft, it does regulate the
towed aircraft, or it's pilot, except for the requirement to an agreed upon
course of action.

> See the limitations in 91.203 that say all aircraft operated must have a
> certificate of
> airworthiness. Registration is also required.
> Now since the Sparrowhawk under part 103 is specifically excluded from
part
> 91
> in 91.1 you cannot apply 91.309 to it. SSSOOO 91.311 becomes the FAR in
> play
> if you wish to tow it. This specifically states that a WAIVER IS
REQUIRED.
>
> I hope this removes any lack of clarity.

No, 91.311 does not apply because the Sparrowhawk is, legally in the FARs, a
glider.

>
> Scott.
>

I'm not a lawyer, FAA official, or administrative law judge; I don't know if
you are or not. But I see nothing in the FARs that prohibits a certified
aircraft from towing the Sparrowhawk glider. On the other hand, if I
actually ran a towing operation I would ask the FAA for a written
confirmation of this point.

I don't own a Sparrowhawk or a tow plane. I'm going flying.

Vaughn

June 12th 04, 03:10 AM

"plasticguy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Repacholi" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Michael Stringfellow" > writes:
> >
> > FAR 91 and friends talks about towing a GLIDER, *not*, Glider other
> > than an Ultralight Glider, so it covers ALL gliders.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
> > +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
> > West Australia 6076
> > comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
> > Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
> > EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
>
> Paul.
> Far 91 specifically excludes part 103 aircraft in FAR 91.1

True enough, 91.1 specifically excludes Part 103 vehicles from being
governed by part 91.

> All references in Part 91 are to certified aircraft carrying
> airworthiness certificates.

Where is it written?

>The reference to Glider in FAR 91

What reference? The definition of "glider" is in Part 90 and Part 90
applies to Subchapters A thru K. Parts 91 and 103 are part of Subchapter F so
the definitions in Part 90 clearly apply to both parts. The SparrowHawk glider
clearly fits the part 90 definition of Glider 100%.

The uncertified SparrowHawk IS an ultralight under part 103, but it is ALSO
an aircraft and it is ALSO a glider according to the very clear definitions in
Part 90. If that is not the way that the FAA intended the world to be, (and I
think it is) then it will be up to them to change the letter of their
regulations. I remember having a discussion like this with my (then)
4-year-old. We were going on a trip and I was trying to explain to her that
when you are in Chicago you are also in Illinois. "How can you be in two places
at once?" she kept asking.

> has been narrowed by FAR 91.203 to be a certified aircraft.

By your own words, FAR 91.203 does not apply to the SparrowHawk, and it
certainly does not modify part 90.

> A glider is a class of aircraft, anything flying under FAR103
> is an AIR VEHICLE, not an aircraft.

Then how do you explain part 90?

> I know things can be confusing looking at it from the bottom of the world
> (smile) but if you read what is written and not what you want to see, you'll
> be better off.

I agree completly. Let's stick to the words on the paper.

This is a useful discussion, even if we never reach agreement, it sends us back
to review the FARs and makes us sharper.

Vaughn

Pete Reinhart

June 12th 04, 01:12 PM

..Dang!
If you guys want to go to the trouble to split hairs, why don't you make the
distinction between Law (Congress makes these, you know) and Regulation as
in FA_R_ s.
cheers!

Finbar

June 13th 04, 05:16 AM

Gosh, I contributed to a thread like this a while back and did all the
research. What it comes down to is aviation snobbery: there are
people who have hard-won pilot certificates and airworthiness
certificates and N-numbers who just can't STAND the idea of other
people, who fly without these things, being considered "real" pilots
in "proper" aircraft.

Yes, an ultralight vehicle is an aircraft. It meets the ONLY
definition of aircraft in the FARs, which is in Part 1. The
definition covers both Parts 91 and 103. Part 103 provides a
definition of a particular type of aircraft, similar to (but arguably
not intended as) a Category, like Rotorcraft or Balloon. Rotorcraft
and Balloons are aircraft too. Not only do ultralight vehicles meet
the definition of aircraft, but Part 103 states (in part) that
"notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of
aircraft..." precisely because it waives those requirements for
aircraft that are ultralight vehicles. The problem that arises if
ultralight vehicles are considered "not aircraft" is that then most of
14CFR wouldn't apply, and the regulators would NOT like that. There
are way too many regs that start off "Except as provided in [ref], no
person may operate a civil aircraft..." The FAA does not want to
waive all of them in one stroke!

Yes, an unpowered ultralight vehicle is a glider. It meets the ONLY
definition of... well, you get the idea.

Although Part 91 does NOT apply to ultralight vehicles, the towing
regulations in Part 91 DO apply to towing an unpowered ultralight
vehicle. Part 91 does not apply to the ultralight, but it DOES apply
to the towplane (unless it also is an ultralight). Since the object
the towplane is towing IS a glider, the regulations appropriate to
towing a glider apply to the towplane. The reference to "maximum
certificated operating weight of the glider" is unfortunate, because
it (presumably inadvertently) forgets about gliders that don't have a
certificated operating weight, such as ultralight vehicles. I don't
recall whether gliders with an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate
have a certificated operating weight, although I think perhaps they
do. Certainly one can be included in the operating limitations: I
don't recall if a maximum weight is required. Anyone?

What's more entertaining, however, is to consider what the
inapplicability of Part 91 to ultralight vehicles allows...

91.117 Aircraft Speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
more than 250 knots.

Whoa! Clip the wings on those Sparrowhawks, let's see the Speed
Demons!

Vaughn

June 13th 04, 03:28 PM

"Finbar" > wrote in message
om...
> Yes, an ultralight vehicle is an aircraft. It meets the ONLY
> definition of aircraft in the FARs, which is in Part 1. The
> definition covers both Parts 91 and 103. Part 103 provides a
> definition of a particular type of aircraft, similar to (but arguably
> not intended as) a Category, like Rotorcraft or Balloon. Rotorcraft
> and Balloons are aircraft too. Not only do ultralight vehicles meet
> the definition of aircraft, but Part 103 states (in part) that
> "notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of
> aircraft..." precisely because it waives those requirements for
> aircraft that are ultralight vehicles. The problem that arises if
> ultralight vehicles are considered "not aircraft" is that then most of
> 14CFR wouldn't apply, and the regulators would NOT like that. There
> are way too many regs that start off "Except as provided in [ref], no
> person may operate a civil aircraft..." The FAA does not want to
> waive all of them in one stroke!
>
> Yes, an unpowered ultralight vehicle is a glider. It meets the ONLY
> definition of... well, you get the idea.
>
> Although Part 91 does NOT apply to ultralight vehicles, the towing
> regulations in Part 91 DO apply to towing an unpowered ultralight
> vehicle. Part 91 does not apply to the ultralight, but it DOES apply
> to the towplane (unless it also is an ultralight). Since the object
> the towplane is towing IS a glider, the regulations appropriate to
> towing a glider apply to the towplane. The reference to "maximum
> certificated operating weight of the glider" is unfortunate, because
> it (presumably inadvertently) forgets about gliders that don't have a
> certificated operating weight, such as ultralight vehicles. I don't
> recall whether gliders with an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate
> have a certificated operating weight, although I think perhaps they
> do. Certainly one can be included in the operating limitations: I
> don't recall if a maximum weight is required. Anyone?

Max airframe weight is set at 155# by Part 103, but max gross is set by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer could help by supplying an appropriate weak
link.

When this discussion first started a few months ago, I was initially
convinced otherwise (and am still willing to be shown "the light of day"), but I
am increasingly convinced that the regulatory story is exactly wat you say
above.

That said, towing gliders is a tough, dangerous and expensive way to make a
living. I support the right of any tow operator to refuse a tow for virtually
any reason; even reasons I may disagree with. If towing ultralight gliders
proves to be safe and legal, market forces will quickly set things right.

> What's more entertaining, however, is to consider what the
> inapplicability of Part 91 to ultralight vehicles allows...
> 91.117 Aircraft Speed.
> (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
> operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
> more than 250 knots.

My gosh! I never noticed that. The max level speed and max stall speed
only apply to powered ultralights. That could have bad implications for a
future self-launching SparrowHawk.

Regards
Vaughn
>
> Whoa! Clip the wings on those Sparrowhawks, let's see the Speed
> Demons!

>
> What's more entertaining, however, is to consider what the
> inapplicability of Part 91 to ultralight vehicles allows...
>
> 91.117 Aircraft Speed.
> (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
> operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
> more than 250 knots.
>
> Whoa! Clip the wings on those Sparrowhawks, let's see the Speed
> Demons!