Is a motorglider a "powered aircraft"

[Greg K.]

Is a motorglider a "powered aircraft"? Does anyone have official words
to this effect?

I asked our regional FSDO this question and he felt that a
motorglider was not a "powered aircraft", but I have heard from others
that it is.

I ask for reasons of certifying as a tow pilot in a motorglider. FAR
61.69 says that "no person may act as pilot in command for towing a
glider unless that person: (1) holds at least a private pilot
certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft."

Of course, I need a Glider ticket to fly a motorglider, but can I
also tow in a motorglider with a Glider certificate (assuming other
conditions are met), or do I need a Pilot-SEL certificate earned in
powered airplane?


My understanding is that a glider is a powered aircraft but not an
"airplane". Can anyone guide me on this? Thanks.

Greg

[Greg K.]

My apologies. I meant to be more specific in request below. I know the
discussion about a motorglider being "powered aircraft" with regard to
14 CFR 91.205. I am asking whether a motorglider is a powered aircraft
with regard to pilot certification. Can a Private Pilot-Glider tow?

Greg

===============
Greg K. wrote:
> Is a motorglider a "powered aircraft"? Does anyone have official
words
> to this effect?
>
> I asked our regional FSDO this question and he felt that a
> motorglider was not a "powered aircraft", but I have heard from
others
> that it is.
>
> I ask for reasons of certifying as a tow pilot in a motorglider.
FAR
> 61.69 says that "no person may act as pilot in command for towing a
> glider unless that person: (1) holds at least a private pilot
> certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft."
>
> Of course, I need a Glider ticket to fly a motorglider, but can I
> also tow in a motorglider with a Glider certificate (assuming other
> conditions are met), or do I need a Pilot-SEL certificate earned in
> powered airplane?
>
>
> My understanding is that a glider is a powered aircraft but not
an
> "airplane". Can anyone guide me on this? Thanks.
>
> Greg

[Andy]

Very interesting question and obvious that FAA did not consider towing
with motor gliders when this rule was drafted.

In my opinion, if your pilot certificate says "ratings - glider" then
you do not hold a category rating for powered aircraft. A self launch
endorsement is not a rating. If you were grandfathered, like me, you
wouldn't even have the endorsement. On the other hand if you have a
rating for single engine land you could be qualified to tow, but not to
fly the motor glider. To meet the letter of 61.69 you would need to
rated in gliders and SEL (or other powered aircraft).

The question does not seem to have been asked in the AFS FAQ ref:

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

Try email to John Lynch for an interpretation (address is in the ref
above)


Andy


Greg K. wrote:
> My apologies. I meant to be more specific in request below. I know
the
> discussion about a motorglider being "powered aircraft" with regard
to
> 14 CFR 91.205. I am asking whether a motorglider is a powered
aircraft
> with regard to pilot certification. Can a Private Pilot-Glider tow?
>
> Greg

[Terry]

> Try email to John Lynch for an interpretation (address is in the ref
> above)
>
> Andy
================================================== ======================

I would suggest a letter to your regional council. You will need more
horsepower than John Lynch to settle this question, especially the
towing portion. In your letter, include the relevant regulations and
how you interpret them and your question.

As to the "powered aircraft", my opinion is that a self-launch glider
(that is what it is called in the regulations) has a power-plant and
certainly is an aircraft by the definitions in 14CFR Part 1, but I am
not a regional council, just a CFI and examiner.

Terry Claussen

[BTIZ]

I would tend to agree with Andy on this one..

It would be interesting to get an official FAA ruling in writing.

BT

"Andy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Very interesting question and obvious that FAA did not consider towing
> with motor gliders when this rule was drafted.
>
> In my opinion, if your pilot certificate says "ratings - glider" then
> you do not hold a category rating for powered aircraft. A self launch
> endorsement is not a rating. If you were grandfathered, like me, you
> wouldn't even have the endorsement. On the other hand if you have a
> rating for single engine land you could be qualified to tow, but not to
> fly the motor glider. To meet the letter of 61.69 you would need to
> rated in gliders and SEL (or other powered aircraft).
>
> The question does not seem to have been asked in the AFS FAQ ref:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc
>
> Try email to John Lynch for an interpretation (address is in the ref
> above)
>
>
> Andy
>
>
> Greg K. wrote:
>> My apologies. I meant to be more specific in request below. I know
> the
>> discussion about a motorglider being "powered aircraft" with regard
> to
>> 14 CFR 91.205. I am asking whether a motorglider is a powered
> aircraft
>> with regard to pilot certification. Can a Private Pilot-Glider tow?
>>
>> Greg
>

[Greg K.]

Terry,

Thanks. I will mail John Lynch. Apparently that a motorglider is a
"powered aircraft" for purposes of 91.205 (aircraft certification) is
best stated in the ACS-100 bulletin in 1993:

-----------------------
Date: 2/10/93

Initiated By: ACE-100

AC No: 21.17-2A

Change:

1=2E PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information and
guidance
concerning acceptable

means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with =A7 21.17(b) of
part
21 of the Federal Aviation

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

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

relative to glider type certification is also provided.

It also includes the following:

b=2E Additional Criteria for Powered Gliders.

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

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

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

(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed
3=2E0
kg/m2 (0.62

lb./ft.2).

NOTE: These criteria originated from JAR-22.

h=2E Section 91.205 of the FAR. Powered gliders are considered to be
powered=20
aircraft for the=20

purpose of complying with =A7 91.205.

[5Z]

Just some off the cuff remarks, as others have provided some reasonable
resposes...

Since a glider rating is needed to fly a motorglider, then even though
it is a powered aircraft, you're not rated. But is an airship
considered a powered aircraft? If so, then all you need is an
airship/glider rating with self launch endorsement.

Whee!

-Tom

[Andy]

Todd, I think we are all in agreement that a motor glider is a powered
aircraft. The area that needs to be interpreted is whether a pilot
with a glider rating (there is no FAA motor glider rating) has a rating
for a powered aircraft. If that pilot does, then do all glider pilots
have a rating for powered aircraft? If not, then is the authorization
by grandfathering or endorsement to be considered a rating. (I am
qualified to fly tail wheel airplanes but I don't have a tail wheel
rating because there isn't one.) I hope Greg will post the answer is he
ever gets one.

To answer 5Z - I don't think there is any doubt that an airship is a
powered aircraft so yes, a pilot with glider and an airship ratings
would meet the letter of 61.69.

Andy

[M B]

I wonder what the insurance companies think.
In my experience, I've found their opinion of whether
a particular type of flight is covered to be far more
important
than anything the FAA comes up with.

If I had an accident, by far my biggest concern isn't
whether I'm legal, but whether I am insured.

To give you an idea of the impact of insurance,
a friend is selling a Lancair IVP (pressurized
piston driven 360hp mach .5 single) for
less than what a 20 year old A36 Bonanza
sells for. The difference: the experimental IVP is
almost totally uninsurable...

Look at Cessna 310 price/perfomance vs. insurability
and you come to the same conclusion.

At 17:00 12 May 2005, Andy wrote:
>Todd, I think we are all in agreement that a motor
>glider is a powered
>aircraft. The area that needs to be interpreted is
>whether a pilot
>with a glider rating (there is no FAA motor glider
>rating) has a rating
>for a powered aircraft. If that pilot does, then do
>all glider pilots
>have a rating for powered aircraft? If not, then is
>the authorization
>by grandfathering or endorsement to be considered a
>rating. (I am
>qualified to fly tail wheel airplanes but I don't have
>a tail wheel
>rating because there isn't one.) I hope Greg will post
>the answer is he
>ever gets one.
>
>To answer 5Z - I don't think there is any doubt that
>an airship is a
>powered aircraft so yes, a pilot with glider and an
>airship ratings
>would meet the letter of 61.69.
>
>Andy
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Bob C]

Very interesting question. I'm not sure of the answer,
but I do appreciate the post that showed the AC with
a definition of 'motorglider'. I've been looking for
that one since I started the jet sailplane project.
I have every intention of stretching the limits.
How about a 250 MPH twin jet motorglider with a 400
mile range? Can be flown on a glider license without
a medical.

BTW, I routinely tow behind a helicopter at airshows.
I endorsed the helicopter pilot's logbook for towing
after simulated tows in a C150/150. At that time I
had never even flown a helicopter. There is no aircraft
cat/class limitation on a tow endorsement, so he was
good to go in anything he was rated for.

Bob C.


At 18:00 12 May 2005, M B wrote:
>I wonder what the insurance companies think.
>In my experience, I've found their opinion of whether
>a particular type of flight is covered to be far more
>important
>than anything the FAA comes up with.
>
>If I had an accident, by far my biggest concern isn't
>whether I'm legal, but whether I am insured.
>
>To give you an idea of the impact of insurance,
>a friend is selling a Lancair IVP (pressurized
>piston driven 360hp mach .5 single) for
>less than what a 20 year old A36 Bonanza
>sells for. The difference: the experimental IVP is
>almost totally uninsurable...
>
>Look at Cessna 310 price/perfomance vs. insurability
>and you come to the same conclusion.
>
>At 17:00 12 May 2005, Andy wrote:
>>Todd, I think we are all in agreement that a motor
>>glider is a powered
>>aircraft. The area that needs to be interpreted is
>>whether a pilot
>>with a glider rating (there is no FAA motor glider
>>rating) has a rating
>>for a powered aircraft. If that pilot does, then do
>>all glider pilots
>>have a rating for powered aircraft? If not, then is
>>the authorization
>>by grandfathering or endorsement to be considered a
>>rating. (I am
>>qualified to fly tail wheel airplanes but I don't have
>>a tail wheel
>>rating because there isn't one.) I hope Greg will post
>>the answer is he
>>ever gets one.
>>
>>To answer 5Z - I don't think there is any doubt that
>>an airship is a
>>powered aircraft so yes, a pilot with glider and an
>>airship ratings
>>would meet the letter of 61.69.
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>
>Mark J. Boyd
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

Todd... on further personal research... you may be correct..
BT

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> I'm inclined to disagree with BTIZ and Andy, but I agree
> it's an interesting question. I'd ask the Chief Counsel's
> Office of the FAA and Lynch.
>
> I'd analyze it this way -
>
> It's well accepted that a motorglider is a "powered
> aircraft" at least for the purpose of compliance with FAR
> 91.205. I believe I've seen other FAR interpretations where
> motorgliders are considered to be "powered aircraft," but
> not airplanes. As a result, prior to this question, I've
> always assumed that the term "powered aircraft" when used in
> the FARs always swept in motorgliders.
>
> Thus, we have to decide for the purpose of FAR
> 61.69 (which says that "no person may act as pilot in
> command for towing a glider unless that person: (1) holds at
> least a private pilot certificate with a category rating for
> powered aircraft") whether a glider rating is a "private
> pilot certificate with a category rating for powered
> aircraft."
>
> Strange as it may seem, my answer would be yes. A private
> pilot with only a glider category rating can legally fly a
> motorglider, and a motorglider has always been considered by
> the FAA to be a "powered aircraft."
>
> Andy posted that a self launch signoff is not a rating. I
> agree, but I think the underlying glider rating qualifies as
> a "category rating for powered aircraft" since it legally
> allows you to fly a motorglider. Thus, I would say that if
> you do not have a self-launch signoff, you could launch by
> aerotow, start the engine in the air, and pick up the glider
> to be towed by the old flyby ground snatch technique. :-)
>
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
>>I would tend to agree with Andy on this one..
>>
>>It would be interesting to get an official FAA ruling in writing.
>>
>>BT
>>
>>"Andy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Very interesting question and obvious that FAA did not consider towing
>>> with motor gliders when this rule was drafted.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, if your pilot certificate says "ratings - glider" then
>>> you do not hold a category rating for powered aircraft. A self launch
>>> endorsement is not a rating. If you were grandfathered, like me, you
>>> wouldn't even have the endorsement. On the other hand if you have a
>>> rating for single engine land you could be qualified to tow, but not to
>>> fly the motor glider. To meet the letter of 61.69 you would need to
>>> rated in gliders and SEL (or other powered aircraft).
>>>
>>> The question does not seem to have been asked in the AFS FAQ ref:
>>>
>>> http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc
>>>
>>> Try email to John Lynch for an interpretation (address is in the ref
>>> above)
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg K. wrote:
>>>> My apologies. I meant to be more specific in request below. I know
>>> the
>>>> discussion about a motorglider being "powered aircraft" with regard
>>> to
>>>> 14 CFR 91.205. I am asking whether a motorglider is a powered
>>> aircraft
>>>> with regard to pilot certification. Can a Private Pilot-Glider tow?
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>
>>
>

[M B]

It's guys like Bob C. that make the USA the
land of the free and the home of the brave.

By that I mean the land where he is free to
do things that the rest of us find a bit...er...quirky
...but very exciting.

and home of the brave (HIM) who are willing to
try it out.

God Bless you, Bob. You have some big stones, man.


At 00:00 13 May 2005, Bob C wrote:
>Very interesting question. I'm not sure of the answer,
>but I do appreciate the post that showed the AC with
>a definition of 'motorglider'. I've been looking for
>that one since I started the jet sailplane project.
> I have every intention of stretching the limits.
>How about a 250 MPH twin jet motorglider with a 400
>mile range? Can be flown on a glider license without
>a medical.
>
>BTW, I routinely tow behind a helicopter at airshows.
> I endorsed the helicopter pilot's logbook for towing
>after simulated tows in a C150/150. At that time I
>had never even flown a helicopter. There is no aircraft
>cat/class limitation on a tow endorsement, so he was
>good to go in anything he was rated for.
>
>Bob C.
>
>
>At 18:00 12 May 2005, M B wrote:
>>I wonder what the insurance companies think.
>>In my experience, I've found their opinion of whether
>>a particular type of flight is covered to be far more
>>important
>>than anything the FAA comes up with.
>>
>>If I had an accident, by far my biggest concern isn't
>>whether I'm legal, but whether I am insured.
>>
>>To give you an idea of the impact of insurance,
>>a friend is selling a Lancair IVP (pressurized
>>piston driven 360hp mach .5 single) for
>>less than what a 20 year old A36 Bonanza
>>sells for. The difference: the experimental IVP is
>>almost totally uninsurable...
>>
>>Look at Cessna 310 price/perfomance vs. insurability
>>and you come to the same conclusion.
>>
>>At 17:00 12 May 2005, Andy wrote:
>>>Todd, I think we are all in agreement that a motor
>>>glider is a powered
>>>aircraft. The area that needs to be interpreted is
>>>whether a pilot
>>>with a glider rating (there is no FAA motor glider
>>>rating) has a rating
>>>for a powered aircraft. If that pilot does, then do
>>>all glider pilots
>>>have a rating for powered aircraft? If not, then is
>>>the authorization
>>>by grandfathering or endorsement to be considered a
>>>rating. (I am
>>>qualified to fly tail wheel airplanes but I don't have
>>>a tail wheel
>>>rating because there isn't one.) I hope Greg will post
>>>the answer is he
>>>ever gets one.
>>>
>>>To answer 5Z - I don't think there is any doubt that
>>>an airship is a
>>>powered aircraft so yes, a pilot with glider and an
>>>airship ratings
>>>would meet the letter of 61.69.
>>>
>>>Andy
>>>
>>>
>>Mark J. Boyd
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Andy]

BT - What did you find that made you change your position?

The Feds seem fairly clear about what is meant by a rating - ref:

Title 14--Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Part 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth
special conditions, privileges, or limitations.


Andy

[Andy]

Yes I disagree. The holder of a private - glider rating does not hold
a rating for a powered aircraft since the category "glider" is not a
powered aircraft". It has nothing to do with what you are authorized
to fly. Tailwheel, complex, high performance all require specific
authorization but they are not ratings. Similarly an auhorization to
fly a motor glider is not a rating.

Andy

[private]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
snip
> I think you are confusing the instructor signoff needed to
> self-launch with the rating required to act as PIC of a
> motorglider (aka "powered aircraft") You can fly a
> motorglider as PIC without the self-launch signoff, as long
> as you do not self-launch. You can legally start the engine
> in the air, cruise and land with the engine running, as long
> as you do not self-launch.
>

Hello Todd,
from your prior post in this thread

"Thus, IMHO, it's pretty inescapable that the holder of a
private glider certificate "holds at least a private pilot
certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft." Do
you disagree?"

Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate can be PIC
of an ASEL Cessna as long as it is not self-launched?
and more likely
Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate with an
instructor signoff needed to self-launch can be legal PIC of an ASEL Cessna?

Is this intended as a practical interpretation or an academic discussion?

You have earned your credibility here and I doubt that you would jeopardize
this lightly.

For anyone planning on doing this use CAUTION as the FAA does not pay for
lawyers themselves and this interpretation (if correct) may be costly to
prove, AND the insurer may not share the FAA definitions, which may mean you
will be flying without FAA required insurance. Remember that the FAA (and
the lawyers) always win in the end.

Cu to all

[Marc Ramsey]

private wrote:
> Hello Todd,
> from your prior post in this thread
>
> "Thus, IMHO, it's pretty inescapable that the holder of a
> private glider certificate "holds at least a private pilot
> certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft." Do
> you disagree?"
>
> Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate can be PIC
> of an ASEL Cessna as long as it is not self-launched?
> and more likely
> Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate with an
> instructor signoff needed to self-launch can be legal PIC of an ASEL Cessna?

What he is saying seems pretty clear to me. Any private glider pilot
can legally fly (and launch, given the appropriate endorsement), based
on their certificate, FAA-designated "powered aircraft" (i.e.,
motorgliders). So, simple logic suggests that the holder of a private
glider certificate possesses a "category rating for powered aircraft",
as he/she is clearly permitted to fly a specific category of "powered
aircraft". The fact that it does not permit flying any "powered
aircraft" (like a Cessna 172) without an endorsement, is completely
irrelevant.

The holder of a private certificate with ASEL rating only, nonetheless
requires solo endorsements to fly motorgliders, airships, or
helicopters, despite possessing a "private certificate with a category
rating for powered aircraft".

If there is any distinction between the two cases above, it will only be
because the FAA doesn't necessarily apply "logic" to its interpretation
of its own regulations...

Marc

[Andy]

So despite the various arguments I think it's going to come down to
whether the FAA considers a glider to be a powered aircraft. (Note I
said glider, not motor glider, since the issued rating is glider not
motor glider). The FAA defines a glider, and that definition allows the
use of power, but not as the primary means of flight. I could not find
an FAA definition of "powered aircraft" although there are definitions
of several subordinates, including powered parachutes.

Anyway perhaps Greg K now has a feel for the sort of
argument/discussion he is likely to get into when he seeks an official
interpretation.

As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow hook installation
on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider with a tow hook
(on the aft end)?


Andy

[Andy]

Sorry that was intended to follow Todd's post (16).

[Andy]

So despite the various arguments I think it's going to come down to
whether the FAA considers a glider to be a powered aircraft. (Note I
said glider, not motor glider, since the issued rating is glider not
motor glider). The FAA defines a glider, and that definition allows the

use of power, but not as the primary means of flight. I could not find

an FAA definition of "powered aircraft" although there are definitions
of several subordinates, including powered parachutes.


Anyway perhaps Greg K now has a feel for the sort of
argument/discussion he is likely to get into when he seeks an official
interpretation.


As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow hook installation

on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider with a tow hook
(on the aft end)?


Andy

[M B]

My $1.05 opinion...

The FAA won't even look at this as
a request, because it is too low down
the priority list.

If an accident occurs, they will look,
and will find that if the pilot was rated
for gliders and had the self-launch endorsement and
met all the
other tow endorsement and currency requirements, that
they won't do any
enforcement action. If required by the
insurer, someone at FAA will write it out,
sign it, and stick a stamp on it.

Whether this is good enough for an insurer...that is
an entirely
different matter. With insurers, the ask
permission vs. beg forgiveness STRONGLY favors the
ask permission idea, in my experience.

At 21:01 16 May 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>'Andy' wrote:
>
>>So despite the various arguments I think it's going
>>to come down to
>>whether the FAA considers a glider to be a powered
>>aircraft.
>
>I don't think I'd phrase it quite like that. I think
>it
>comes down to whether the FAA thinks the holder of
>a glider
>rating is someone who 'holds at least a private pilot
>certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft'
>
>> (Note I
>>said glider, not motor glider, since the issued rating
>>is glider not
>>motor glider).
>
>It is true that the issued rating is 'glider,' but
>it's also
>true that the FAA considers the term 'glider' to include
>powered aircraft (also called 'powered gliders') and
>non-powered aircraft.
>
>AC No: 21.17-2A -'Powered gliders are considered to
>be
>powered aircraft for the purpose of complying with
>91.205.'
>
>>The FAA defines a glider, and that definition allows
>>the
>>use of power, but not as the primary means of flight.
>> I could not find
>>an FAA definition of 'powered aircraft' although there
>>are definitions
>>of several subordinates, including powered parachutes.
>
>I don't believe there is an FAA definition of 'powered
>aircraft.' There are AC references that tell us powered
>gliders are powered aircraft and have to comply with
>all
>FARs using the term 'powered aircraft.' There are
>also AC
>references stating that a motorglider or a powered
>glider is
>a 'glider.'
>
>>Anyway perhaps Greg K now has a feel for the sort of
>>argument/discussion he is likely to get into when he
>>seeks an official
>>interpretation.
>
>Yep. I definitely agree with this.
>
>>As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow
>>hook installation
>>on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider
>>with a tow hook
>>(on the aft end)?
>
>Two more great questions. If Greg K does ask the FAA,
>I'd
>love to know the answer.
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[private]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "private" > wrote:
> >Hello Todd,
>
> Hello "private"

Thank you for the clarification. I am in Canada and am not fully
knowledgable regarding FAA definitions and the use of terms such as rating,
category and class.

I have enjoyed your past posts and think that
> >You have earned your credibility here and I doubt that you would
jeopardize
> >this lightly.
>
> Thank you for this comment. I hope I'm not jeopardizing
> anything by giving an honest opinion, no matter how
> surprising my conclusion may be.
>

I always appreciate your opinions and conclusions no matter how surprising.
Your past explanations have been very informative and well stated.
Thank you

[private]

"Andy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
snip
> As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow hook installation
> on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider with a tow hook
> (on the aft end)?
>

Diamond Katana Xtreme HK36T

from dealer data sheet
tricycle 27:1 or tailwheel 28:1 l/d
mt 1200lb - maxgross 1698lb (Canadian certification, FAA cert 1750?)
span 54'6"
Rotax 914F turbo 115hp - prop hydraulic cs full feathering
factory optional towing kit $4,152
max tow weight 1,156lb

I would suspect (but cannot confirm) that this aircraft is fully certified
by the factory as an FAA motor glider including the tow configuration. I do
not know how it would be defined by FAA

The next question that occurs to me is whether the unfortunate recent 48?hr
commercial glider pilot in Hawaii would have been legal to give scenics or
to tow gliders or banners (shudder) with this aircraft for pay.

[Paul Lynch]

There seems to be a lot of over analyzing in this entire thread (IMHO).
"Powered aircraft" has nothing to do with what you are legally authorized to
fly. Powered aircraft is mostly used in regulations dealing with equipment
requirements. What you are authorized to fly is specified by category,
class, and type (if appropriate). The order is significant. The categories
are listed in 61.5 (b). There is no general "aircraft category" rating, but
there are 5 specific aicraft category ratings (airplane, glider, ballon,
rotorcraft, lighter than air, and powered lift). Some are further subdived
into classes (e.g. single engine land, multi-engine sea). Flying a
self-launched motor glider requires an instructor endorsement, as does
high-performance in airplanes.

Paul

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Andy" > wrote:
>
>>The Feds seem fairly clear about what is meant by a rating - ref:
>>Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth
>>special conditions, privileges, or limitations.
>
> Andy,
>
> I can't tell what point you are trying to make by referring
> to the definition of "rating."
>
> The "rating" in question is a private glider certificate.
> That rating allows the holder to fly a motorglider. The FAA
> considers motorgliders to be "powered aircraft." The basic
> glider certificate is what is required to fly the powered
> aircraft, and it can be flown even without a self launch
> signoff. For example, a turbo sustainer pilot would never
> need the self-launch signoff and self launchers can be flow
> by aerotow without it.
>
> Thus, IMHO, it's pretty inescapable that the holder of a
> private glider certificate "holds at least a private pilot
> certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft." Do
> you disagree?
>

[Bob Korves]

(Big snip) AND the insurer may not share the FAA definitions, which may mean
you
> will be flying without FAA required insurance.(snip)

I am not aware of a FAR requiring insurance. Is there one?
-Bob Korves

[Andy]

Paul Lynch wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of over analyzing in this entire thread
(IMHO).
> "Powered aircraft" has nothing to do with what you are legally
authorized to
> fly.

You should probably read 61.69 which was the subject of this thread.
The FAA believes, and states, that being rated to fly "powered
aircraft" has everything to do with being qualified to tow.

Andy

[Paul Lynch]

OK, but powered aircraft refers to a powered glider or ultralight. There
are some gliders capable of towing a light glider or ultralight. Your
license tells you what AIRCRAFT you can fly, the CFI endorsements can expand
that by adding "subsets" (my choice of word) such as tailwheel, high
performance, or self-launch. Towing is not actually an endorsement. It is
training/currency that must be logged. You will not see any sample
endorsement in the AC covering instructor endorsements concerning towing.

"Andy" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Paul Lynch wrote:
>> There seems to be a lot of over analyzing in this entire thread
> (IMHO).
>> "Powered aircraft" has nothing to do with what you are legally
> authorized to
>> fly.
>
> You should probably read 61.69 which was the subject of this thread.
> The FAA believes, and states, that being rated to fly "powered
> aircraft" has everything to do with being qualified to tow.
>
> Andy
>

[Jim Phoenix]

Actually,

The law allows for the FAA to pay for your legal costs if you win your case
or whatever wrong you were subjected to by them and there's plenty of case
law overturning FAA, NTSB law judge and even Federal court rulings in favor
of the defendant. People have their legal fees reimbursed regularly, it's
all documented on the NTSB legal page. Google it.

Hopefully you'll never need legal assistance, because the FAA rarely goes to
court without a solid plan, but one never knows.

Jim


"private" > wrote snip>
> For anyone planning on doing this use CAUTION as the FAA does not pay for
> lawyers themselves>

Remember that the FAA (and
> the lawyers) always win in the end.>

[M B]

'Towing is not actually an endorsement'...hmmm

I disagree. 61.69 has the word 'endorsement'
in two different places. I would suggest you review
it and
I would then ask if you think a non-regulatory
Advisory Circular supercedes this 61.69 regulation.


The AC has no Sport Pilot endorsements either,
yet I myself have endorsed for this privilege also.
This doesn't bother me in the slightest...

At 17:00 17 May 2005, Paul Lynch wrote:
>OK, but powered aircraft refers to a powered glider
>or ultralight. There
>are some gliders capable of towing a light glider or
>ultralight. Your
>license tells you what AIRCRAFT you can fly, the CFI
>endorsements can expand
>that by adding 'subsets' (my choice of word) such
>as tailwheel, high
>performance, or self-launch. Towing is not actually
>an endorsement. It is
>training/currency that must be logged. You will not
>see any sample
>endorsement in the AC covering instructor endorsements
>concerning towing.
>
>'Andy' wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Paul Lynch wrote:
>>> There seems to be a lot of over analyzing in this
>>>entire thread
>> (IMHO).
>>> 'Powered aircraft' has nothing to do with what you
>>>are legally
>> authorized to
>>> fly.
>>
>> You should probably read 61.69 which was the subject
>>of this thread.
>> The FAA believes, and states, that being rated to
>>fly 'powered
>> aircraft' has everything to do with being qualified
>>to tow.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd