Update on the SparrowHawk and more....

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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.

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

"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.

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