Re: Registration Airplane or Motorglider

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:38:29 GMT, Russ Haggerty >
wrote in >::

> I am building and ready to register a Europa experimental. I have
>both regular and glider wings. I am soliciting opinions as to any
>problems or restrictions to flight if I register it as a motorglider.
>I see advantages as to no medical requirements for glider license, and
>also 10 flight requirement for license and a motor launch endorsement
>from a CFIG.
>
>Any opinions or comments welcome
>
>Thanks........

Congratulations on your completion of a worthy project.

In addition to the benefit of self-certifying your medical condition
for operation of your Europa, registering it as a motorglider will
give you the right-of-way over all but balloons, aircraft in distress,
and perhaps aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft. I am unable
to think of a single negative aspect to choosing to register your
Europa as a glider.

I've crossposted to rec.aviation.soaring; readership of that newsgroup
may be able to provide additional insight into your decision.

What are other Europa builders doing?




http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9d5d67098112d460bcfa693f893dd20d&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7&idno=14
§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation
of an aircraft on water.

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether
an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person
operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When
a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way,
the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over,
under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over
all other air traffic.

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging
at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so),
the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the
aircraft are of different categories—

(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of
aircraft;

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute,
weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the
right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.

...

[COLIN LAMB]

One reason to register as a glider is that it may be more valuable on sale,
because of the medical issue. Right now, a pilot who has been denied a
medical may not be licensed under the new sport-pilot rules, but can fly a
glider/motorglider so long as he can certify himself.

One caution is that once certified as an aircraft, it may be difficult to
recertify it as a glider. So, if you think you may ever want it certified
as a glider, then do it with the original certification.

Colin N12HS


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04

[Mark James Boyd]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>I am unable
>to think of a single negative aspect to choosing to register your
>Europa as a glider.

The vast majority of pilots have an airplane license and NOT
a glider license (in the USA). They will not be able to get insurance
without at least a glider solo endorsement and a self-launch
endorsement. There are at least 100 ASEL CFIs to every self-launch
capable CFIG, so finding an instructor is difficult even
if you provide the Europa for training for free prior to purchase.

So if you decide to get a partner or sell the aircraft, you will either
have a smaller pool of potential interested pilots, or will have
to convince interested parties to take glider training.

Whether this negative is overriden by other positives is something
you'll have to consider...

I wish the USA would instantly grant glider privs. to every
airplane pilot. Then the only thing stopping a pilot from
flying a glider would be the need for a launch endorsement.
I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
in all the other areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

In article et>,
COLIN LAMB > wrote:
>One reason to register as a glider is that it may be more valuable on sale,
>because of the medical issue. Right now, a pilot who has been denied a
>medical may not be licensed under the new sport-pilot rules, but can fly a
>glider/motorglider so long as he can certify himself.

The Europa Vne is so high it would not qualify as a glider under
sport pilot. If the max cruise is low enough, it may qualify as
a Light Sport Airplane, however, with all the advantages of
minimal maint. certification and no medical...

Anyone know the Europa max cruise speed in level flight?
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

Doesn't need to. It would be certified as a glider, experimental, amateur
built.
There is no category for motorglider. It would not be subject to weight,
speed
limitations, other than what you put down on the certification papers when
you
get it certified. Builder's choice.

Mark James Boyd wrote in message <41964365$1@darkstar>...
>In article et>,
>COLIN LAMB > wrote:
>>One reason to register as a glider is that it may be more valuable on
sale,
>>because of the medical issue. Right now, a pilot who has been denied a
>>medical may not be licensed under the new sport-pilot rules, but can fly a
>>glider/motorglider so long as he can certify himself.
>
>The Europa Vne is so high it would not qualify as a glider under
>sport pilot. If the max cruise is low enough, it may qualify as
>a Light Sport Airplane, however, with all the advantages of
>minimal maint. certification and no medical...
>
>Anyone know the Europa max cruise speed in level flight?
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd

[Vaughn]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4196428a$1@darkstar...
> I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
> in all the other areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow...

Then you are just lucky.

Vaughn

[BTIZ]

>
> One caution is that once certified as an aircraft, it may be difficult to
> recertify it as a glider. So, if you think you may ever want it certified
> as a glider, then do it with the original certification.
>
> Colin N12HS

An Airplane and a Glider are both AIRCRAFT... so how do you intend to
certify it?

I think you meant to say, Airplane,, not Aircraft.. and yes.. once certified
one way, it is difficult to change...

BT

[Bill Zaleski]

On 13 Nov 2004 09:21:14 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>I am unable
>>to think of a single negative aspect to choosing to register your
>>Europa as a glider.
>
>The vast majority of pilots have an airplane license and NOT
>a glider license (in the USA). They will not be able to get insurance
>without at least a glider solo endorsement and a self-launch
>endorsement. There are at least 100 ASEL CFIs to every self-launch
>capable CFIG, so finding an instructor is difficult even
>if you provide the Europa for training for free prior to purchase.
>
>So if you decide to get a partner or sell the aircraft, you will either
>have a smaller pool of potential interested pilots, or will have
>to convince interested parties to take glider training.
>
>Whether this negative is overriden by other positives is something
>you'll have to consider...
>
>I wish the USA would instantly grant glider privs. to every
>airplane pilot. Then the only thing stopping a pilot from
>flying a glider would be the need for a launch endorsement.
>I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
>in all the other areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow...



I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
in all the other areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow...

That is an absurd statement.

[COLIN LAMB]

"I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
in all the other areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow"

Hello - I am one. I was a power pilot first and used to make my glider
instructor sick with uncoordinated turns. My brain kept kicking the yarn
instead of pulling it. Took a number of flights before I was safe, just
because of that trick. Once that was learned, the self launch endorsement
brought out additional required skills, like how to turn an aircraft with
long wings around without hitting things on the ground, and how to get out a
pothole without sufficient power.

Transistioning from one type of aircraft to another brings unique problems,
because of all the "bad" habits that need to be unlearned and new skills
needed.

Colin N12HS





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04

[Mark James Boyd]

Well, one of the points was that certification as a glider means no
medical. My point was that certification as an Airplane-LSA
also means no medical.

Additionally, if it is an LSA (either as an LSA glider or as
an LSA airplane) a repairman with 16 hours of training can do the
yearly condition inspection. If it is just glider-experimental-amateur
built then an A&P or the builder must do the condition inspection.

I own an airplane-experimental which qualifies as an LSA.
Because of this, I and my partners have looked very
closely at the LSA repairman rules and are very interested
in taking the LSA inspection course.

If you own a glider which may qualify as an LSA, I suggest you look
carefully at these regulations and the possibilities they afford.

The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
The Vne seems to be the discriminator.

I'm still surprised why the PW-5, Apis, and Sparrowhawk are
121 or 123 Knots Vne. One would have thought the designers
would jigger something enough to reduce the Vne to 120 to
meet this rule. I've had enough contact with these
and other manufacturers to notice that the potential marketing
benefits of Sport Pilot and LSA are only partially understood...

In article >,
> wrote:
>Doesn't need to. It would be certified as a glider, experimental, amateur
>built.
>There is no category for motorglider. It would not be subject to weight,
>speed
>limitations, other than what you put down on the certification papers when
>you
>get it certified. Builder's choice.
>
>Mark James Boyd wrote in message <41964365$1@darkstar>...
>>In article et>,
>>COLIN LAMB > wrote:
>>>One reason to register as a glider is that it may be more valuable on
>sale,
>>>because of the medical issue. Right now, a pilot who has been denied a
>>>medical may not be licensed under the new sport-pilot rules, but can fly a
>>>glider/motorglider so long as he can certify himself.
>>
>>The Europa Vne is so high it would not qualify as a glider under
>>sport pilot. If the max cruise is low enough, it may qualify as
>>a Light Sport Airplane, however, with all the advantages of
>>minimal maint. certification and no medical...
>>
>>Anyone know the Europa max cruise speed in level flight?
>>--
>>
>>------------+
>>Mark J. Boyd
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

"I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
in all the other (PTS) areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow"

Except for "soaring techniques," I can't think of another area of the
PTS that isn't required in order to sign someone off for
aerotow.

5 ft rope break: MCA, stalls, and recovery, speed-to-fly,
normal and crosswind landings.

50 ft rope break (simulated): slip to a landing, off airport
landing.

200 ft rope break: steep turns with coordination, turns to a heading,
downwind landing, minimum sink speed.

So for me, by the time I sign anyone off for aerotow,
they're already safe to fly a glider in all the other (safety) areas.

Granted, not in all conditions, and not in all gliders are they safe,
but this is trivially true. I don't know any pilot who
is safe in all gliders in all conditions (although there are at
least two I can think of on this newsgroup who would argue
differently ;P).

Colin is talking about self-launch, a different launch technique,
but I'd be surprised if his instructor felt he could
safely self-launch before his coordination was good. Even in
self-launch, if the engine stops at XXX feet, isn't there a
turn back to the airport? Isn't this with a pretty good roll rate
and steep bank? Doesn't this require good coordination to ensure
safety? Wouldn't this be required before endorsing someone for
self-launch?

Does someone need to learn soaring techniques to safely fly a glider?
I didn't. Sure I learned steep turns, and we talked about
thermals, but I trained and was soloed (by a glider DPE) in calm air.
I never felt the least bit unsafe.

Are there any instructors who felt an ASEL transition pilot could
safely do all of the things for an aerotow endorsement but NOT safely
solo? This seems a little funny, since an ASEL transition pilot
with an aerotow endorsement can fly an experimental glider
solo under the current rules anyway (no cat/class required for PIC).
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Robertmudd1u]

>I'm still surprised why the PW-5, Apis, and Sparrowhawk are 121 or 123 Knots
Vne. One would have thought the designers would jigger something enough to
reduce the Vne to 120 to meet this rule. I've had enough contact with these
and other manufacturers to notice that the potential marketing benefits of
Sport Pilot and LSA are only partially understood...>>


There is one little thing that I never heard anyone mention until OSH '04 and
that is, foreign made aircraft must come from a country that has a bi-lateral
airworthiness agreement with the USA. Had this requirement been more widely
known foreign manufactures might have had the time to get their governments to
conclude a bi-lateral agreement. I think those without are now working on this.


The LSA regulations were written mostly for the power plane crowd, it really
seems that glider stuff was stuck on almost as an after thought. I have yet to
read a good critique of why one would prefer the LSA glider over the non LSA
glider. Training minimums don't mean much because no CFI in their right mind
will sign you off until you are safe no matter what the minimum requirements
are. There are fewer restrictions, both in the capabilities of the glider and
the medical requirements with the non LSA route.

I think the potential benefits of LSA are understood. For the gliding community
I don't think they are very large. Mark, what do you see them as?

The real problem may be that we dealers and the soaring community as a whole
are not getting the word out to the LSA crowd that there is an alternative.
This lack of awareness is in part due to the fact that, here in the USA, other
than Soaring magazine, there are very few articles written in the popular
aviation press about soaring. The aviation periodicals market is deeply
segmented. One segment usually has no idea what the other segment is doing.

The German magazine Aerokurier prints articles on gliding every month, plus
skydiving and helicopters etc. I think that until recently there was no
national magazine dedicated to soaring.
In England, the fine magazine Today's Pilot always has gliding articles despite
its main focus on power flying. I can think of no U.S. based magazine that does
that.

As a sport we are not getting the word out.

Robert Mudd

[[email protected]]

Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.

>The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
>Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
>Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
>The Vne seems to be the discriminator.

[Wayne Paul]

Glider can have retractable gear. See slide 8 on the following link:
http://afs600.faa.gov/documents/PDF/Sport%20Pilot%20Program%20Overview.pdf

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/


" > wrote in message
...
> Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.



>
> >The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
> >Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
> >Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
> >The Vne seems to be the discriminator.
>
>

[COLIN LAMB]

"Well, one of the points was that certification as a glider means no
medical. My point was that certification as an Airplane-LSA
also means no medical."

As of this date, that is misleading. If you have been denied a medical by
the FAA, you cannot be certified under the LSA rules. This is a gaping hole
in the present rules that may be changed someday.

So, if you are a pilot with a medical and your medical was revoked, you are
limited to flying a glider and cannot fly an LSA - unless you go back to the
FAA and get a waiver or get your medical back. This is a case of the FAA
being worried about getting sued. It also means that if something happens
that causes you to believe that you will not get your medical, do not take a
FAA flight exam and do not tell the FAA. Let it lapse and then you can get
a LSA.

Colin N12HS





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04

[BeaglePig]

" > wrote in news:10pfmmr7ffv7l23
@corp.supernews.com:

> Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.
>
>>The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
>>Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
>>Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
>>The Vne seems to be the discriminator.
>
>

Vne has nothing to do with Sport Pilot Lic or Light Sport Aircraft. The
top end speed limiter is the speed at "maximum continous power" at sea
level.

BeaglePig

[Mark James Boyd]

Section 1.1

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or
powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to
meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for
operation on water...

(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (Vne) of not more than
120 knots CAS for a glider.

Perhaps BeaglePig was quoting:

(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous
power (Vh) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric
conditions at sea level.

which does apply to LSA other than gliders...

Unfortunately the synopses of LSA and SP put out by EAA and others,
as well as even the summarized FAA brochure, omit the special glider
Vne LSA definition, so it is easy to become misled...

Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> BeaglePig > wrote:
>>
>> Vne has nothing to do with Sport Pilot Lic or Light Sport Aircraft. The
>> top end speed limiter is the speed at "maximum continous power" at sea
>> level.
>
>Which is 0 knots for any pure glider.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
BeaglePig > wrote:

> " > wrote in news:10pfmmr7ffv7l23
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.
> >
> >>The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
> >>Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
> >>Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
> >>The Vne seems to be the discriminator.
> >
> >
>
> Vne has nothing to do with Sport Pilot Lic or Light Sport Aircraft. The
> top end speed limiter is the speed at "maximum continous power" at sea
> level.

Which is 0 knots for any pure glider.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Mark James Boyd]

First of all, thank you Robert for reading this and expressing interest
in LSA and Sport Pilot. I hope some of the things I write here
possibly are helpful or enhance some marketing opportunities for
you.

Robertmudd1u > wrote:
>
>>I'm still surprised why the PW-5, Apis, and Sparrowhawk are 121 or 123 Knots
>Vne. One would have thought the designers would jigger something enough to
>reduce the Vne to 120 to meet this rule. I've had enough contact with these
>and other manufacturers to notice that the potential marketing benefits of
>Sport Pilot and LSA are only partially understood...>>
>
>
>There is one little thing that I never heard anyone mention until OSH '04 and
>that is, foreign made aircraft must come from a country that has a bi-lateral
>airworthiness agreement with the USA. Had this requirement been more widely
>known foreign manufactures might have had the time to get their governments to
>conclude a bi-lateral agreement. I think those without are now working on this.

With so many other priorities, LSA snuck up on the FAA as well as the
rest of us. Both the Fresno and San Jose FSDOs in California were doing
a great job getting prepared for this, but they were not pushed the
info early from the top. There are a lot of wide ranging ramifications
of SP and LSA that are simply developing on the spot. To their credit,
the FAA management have given wide discretion to the SP branch to develop
policies, and these policies seem to be coming down heavily on the side
of less regulation (in most areas). I'm not familiar with the bi-lateral
agreements you write about, but suspect there are ways around this under LSA.
Perhaps if the kit is "completed" in the USA, and "industry
consensus standards" are followed, then the craft can be an LSA if all other
limitations are met. This could be as simple as a single bolt or
perhaps the canopy installed at the receiving end. Be careful, I am not an
A&P and can't speak with authority to this (maintenance) point regarding
LSA.

>The LSA regulations were written mostly for the power plane crowd, it really
>seems that glider stuff was stuck on almost as an after thought.
Very true. Already there have been a lot of changes (retract main wheel
allowed, stowable prop allowed) and I expect at least one more (3 hours
of training within 60 days changed to 3 glider flights within 60 days of the
proficiency check).

>I have yet to
>read a good critique of why one would prefer the LSA glider over the non LSA
>glider. Training minimums don't mean much because no CFI in their right mind
>will sign you off until you are safe no matter what the minimum requirements
>are. There are fewer restrictions, both in the capabilities of the glider and
>the medical requirements with the non LSA route.

The major changes are:

Transition ASEL pilots and ASEL CFIs do not require any additional
FAA or DPE practical test to become an SP-Glider pilot or CFI.
The signatures of two CFIGs are sufficient to add glider-SP
privileges to an existing ASEL private or ASEL CFI license.

There are no discernible benefits for US pilots who have no license
whatsoever. These folks are just as well off with a Glider PPL as
a glider-SP license.

In terms of maintenance (and again in this area one is best to double
check my assertions carefully as I am not an A&P):

An LSA-glider can have the annual condition inspection done by the owner,
who has an LSA-Repairman-Inspection certificate gained by completing a
16 hour course.

This is different from a standard Airworthiness cert which requires
an IA annual. It is different from an experimental which requires
an A&P or repairman-builder cert. for the condition inspection.

There are those who say the buyer IS the builder. Fine. What
about when you sell your experimental? The new owner can do
the condition inspection if it is an LSA-experimental, by having
the LSA-repairman-inspection certificate gained at a 16 hour course.
If the glider is NOT an LSA-experimental but a regular
experimental, they're stuck with having an A&P do the condition
inspection. This means if the owner did maint. and logged it
over the year, but the A&P can't verify it, the A&P may not
sign it off as airworthy.

Now this next part is pretty sketchy, so hold on. It seems that
an LSA-glider can be used at a commercial operation legally,
much like a standard certificate. So folks can rent it out
or get instruction in it. As far as I know, for an experimental,
this requires an exemption which is fairly involved.

As far as I can tell, there are absolutely no downsides
to certifying a glider as LSA instead of another option (with one caveat).
The caveat is that if the glider can have or has a standard
airworthiness certificate (like a 2-22 or 2-33), downgrading this
to an LSA airworthiness certificate may increase the insurance or
reduce the value of the glider during subsequent sale (if the
new buyer isn't confident in the decreased maint. standards).

>I think the potential benefits of LSA are understood.
I think the benefits are not understood, and in fact are at this
point not even quantifiable.

I have no idea how many additional transition pilots will take this
option because there is no check ride. I also don't know
how important the extra cost of an A&P vs. do it yourself inspections
will be to glider pilots.

I do know I will be transitioning several ASEL CFIs to become
SP-Glider-CFIs after Jan 15th, and this will create a much
larger pool of potential instructors at our club.

>For the gliding community
>I don't think they are very large. Mark, what do you see them as?
I think a real problem in General Aviation as a whole is the
rampant overqualification of instructors. Airplane Single Engine Land (ASEL)
CFIs must have a Private, Commercial, Instrument, and Instructor
license before teaching even one hour of day VFR in a 65hp Piper Cub.

This is absurd. The Sport Pilot rule fixes this by
eliminating the Commercial and Instrument ratings. One can now
take only two check rides (instead of four) and then instruct in
a Cub. Getting rid of the very involved instrument training is
a real boon to this path to becoming a CFI.

What does this have to do with gliding? Well, a LOT of CFIGs
started as ASEL CFIs. After paying for all that training and
four (ummm...wait, SIX) checkrides to be a CFIG, do you think
they're going to instruct in gliders for $10/hour? No way.

So what if it's now only 2 checkrides? ASEL PVT and then
ASEL-SP-CFI? Then no checkride, just CFI signatures, mano-a-mano.
S**t rolls downhill. Less s**t on the CFIs, less $$$$s of cost
passed on for the students. Sounds like good 'ol Reaganomics
to me ;)

Now look at the other part. An ASEL private pilot walks into
one of the FBOs in California with an LSA glider (about half of them
have LSAs). He can now get a glider-SP rating in a day, with no
FAA checkride. How cool is that? How many more pilots do
you draw into gliding with that? I like this idea.


****SIDEBAR*****
OK, OK, who cares about the piper cub? Keep in mind this is a developing
rule. I'd be quite surprised if the Cezzna-152 doesn't get folded
into SP within 3 years...

>
>The real problem may be that we dealers and the soaring community as a whole
>are not getting the word out to the LSA crowd that there is an alternative.
>This lack of awareness is in part due to the fact that, here in the USA, other
>than Soaring magazine, there are very few articles written in the popular
>aviation press about soaring. The aviation periodicals market is deeply
>segmented. One segment usually has no idea what the other segment is doing.

The is a whole new SP and LSA magazine, just started publication.
Robert, if you don't have an ad in there, I think you
are missing out on the most active, big disposable income potential
clients in sport aviation.

>The German magazine Aerokurier prints articles on gliding every month, plus
>skydiving and helicopters etc. I think that until recently there was no
>national magazine dedicated to soaring.
>In England, the fine magazine Today's Pilot always has gliding articles despite
>its main focus on power flying. I can think of no U.S. based magazine that does
>that.

I read SP and LSA mag, not a single article on gliders. Is the
SZD rep asleep? I saw balloons, gyrocopters, ultralights. I think
even that Donkey from Shrek was flying a Luscombe :P
Dr. Jack and the Sparrowhawk guys seem to be marketing to
larger audiences. I'm surprised the glider manufacturers as a whole
seem to marketing to people who...are already glider pilots.

>As a sport we are not getting the word out.
Don't look at me. If you asked 100 of my closest friends
about gliders, they'd tell you it's all I ever talk about :)
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

COLIN LAMB > wrote:
>"Well, one of the points was that certification as a glider means no
>medical. My point was that certification as an Airplane-LSA
>also means no medical."
>
>As of this date, that is misleading. If you have been denied a medical by
>the FAA, you cannot be certified under the LSA rules. This is a gaping hole
>in the present rules that may be changed someday.
>
>So, if you are a pilot with a medical and your medical was revoked, you are
>limited to flying a glider and cannot fly an LSA - unless you go back to the
>FAA and get a waiver or get your medical back. This is a case of the FAA
>being worried about getting sued. It also means that if something happens
>that causes you to believe that you will not get your medical, do not take a
>FAA flight exam and do not tell the FAA. Let it lapse and then you can get
>a LSA.

The "previously denied a medical" part of Sport Pilot is quite a bone
in the craw of EAA. I suspect it will be resolved soon. As I don't know
how many glider pilots fly gliders specifically because they have failed
an official FAA medical, I can't speak to whether this is a worthy
subject or a very minor footnote of the rule...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[BeaglePig]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in
news:419843f4$1@darkstar:

> Section 1.1
>
> Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or
> powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to
> meet the following:
>
> (1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--
> (ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for
> operation on water...
>
> (3) A maximum never-exceed speed (Vne) of not more than
> 120 knots CAS for a glider.
>
> Perhaps BeaglePig was quoting:
>
> (2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous
> power (Vh) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric
> conditions at sea level.
>
> which does apply to LSA other than gliders...
>
> Unfortunately the synopses of LSA and SP put out by EAA and others,
> as well as even the summarized FAA brochure, omit the special glider
> Vne LSA definition, so it is easy to become misled...
>

> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd
>

You're right, I had no idea of the differing requirement for Sport Pilot
gliders.

IMHO, there is no reason to get a "sport pilot" lic for gliders or
motorgliders. There is absolutely NOTHING gained, and much lost. A
regular glider licence has no night flight restrictions, no altitude
restriction, and most importantly, if you happen to loose your Drivers
License, even for something not related to your health, you can still
fly.

I'm a big proponent of Sport Pilot, and even of S-LSA or E-LSA gliders,
but for someone to choose to get a Sport Pilot-glider lic. would be
foolish (you can still fly LSA gliders with a reg glider lic)

BeaglePig

[Bill Daniels]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:419853c3$1@darkstar...

> As far as I can tell, there are absolutely no downsides
> to certifying a glider as LSA instead of another option (with one caveat).
> The caveat is that if the glider can have or has a standard
> airworthiness certificate (like a 2-22 or 2-33), downgrading this
> to an LSA airworthiness certificate may increase the insurance or
> reduce the value of the glider during subsequent sale (if the
> new buyer isn't confident in the decreased maint. standards).
>

If I understand the LSA certification correctly, (big if) there is one other
big disadvantage and is the 10,000 ASL altitude limit. For those of us
living in high country, that's a problem.

Bill Daniels

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:Ef4md.90244$HA.34217@attbi_s01...
>
> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> news:419853c3$1@darkstar...
>
> > As far as I can tell, there are absolutely no downsides
> > to certifying a glider as LSA instead of another option (with one
caveat).
> > The caveat is that if the glider can have or has a standard
> > airworthiness certificate (like a 2-22 or 2-33), downgrading this
> > to an LSA airworthiness certificate may increase the insurance or
> > reduce the value of the glider during subsequent sale (if the
> > new buyer isn't confident in the decreased maint. standards).
> >
>
> If I understand the LSA certification correctly, (big if) there is one
other
> big disadvantage and is the 10,000 ASL altitude limit. For those of us
> living in high country, that's a problem.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
In looking over the regs, it does not appear that the LSA has this limit
unless it's contained in the 'Aircraft Operating Instructions', but the SP
operating the LSA does. IOW, with a private glider pilot rating, the
altitude restriction doesn't apply. UL pilots are also authorized above
10000msl. However, in response to the comments made to SP NPRM about
removing the 10,000msl limit, several of the supporting comments for
rejection made by the FAA had to do with use of O2, size of the aircraft
mixing with larger airframes, visibility, and so on, but were blended with
the training level of the SP. I think the spirit and intent was that SP
will not operate above 10000msl at all and the FAA removed the 2000agl band
above 10000msl after the comment period.

There is potential for SSA to play in the LSA arena of inspection and
maintenance, similar to the BGA model, for recreational/training type
gliders. The higher VNe racing gliders won't fit. Unless there was a
change, FAA won't require or permit recertification of existing aircraft,
only fat ultralights will become ELSA's. Gliders fitting the definition
could be originally certified as LSA's, but downgrading, at least as
originally proposed, was not an option. Perhaps this changed following the
comment period? If not, the initial market for inspectors and maintainers
will be pretty limited.

Frank Whiteley

[Mark James Boyd]

BeaglePig > wrote:
>
>IMHO, there is no reason to get a "sport pilot" lic for gliders or
>motorgliders. There is absolutely NOTHING gained, and much lost.

Absolutely true in terms of initial license. I don't expect anyone
to choose as their first license to get a glider-SP license.

However, for transition pilots, either from ultralights
or Airplane Single Engine Land, this is a large improvement.

>A
>regular glider licence has no night flight restrictions, no altitude
>restriction, and most importantly, if you happen to loose your Drivers
>License, even for something not related to your health, you can still
>fly.

Another interesting point is that 61.31(d)(2) solo of transition
ASEL pilots to gliders also has no restrictions. This is why in
my writings about SP I focus almost exclusively on 2-place
LSA and SP. The passenger carrying in a new cat/class with NO
additional check ride is the key. And pipistrel seems to be counting on
this, since their Sinus and Virus motorgliders require but
the stroke of a pen by two CFIs to make an ASEL into a glider-SP.

>
>I'm a big proponent of Sport Pilot, and even of S-LSA or E-LSA gliders,
>but for someone to choose to get a Sport Pilot-glider lic. would be
>foolish (you can still fly LSA gliders with a reg glider lic)

Again, this is very true. We're just talking about transition
pilots in two-seat gliders. The rest of the SP rule doesn't seem
to have much value where gliders are concerned...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> "I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
> in all the other (PTS) areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow"
> ... [big snip] ...

In the sense you developped below, it is certainly true, but would be equally
true if you deleted the word "ASEL".