Update on the SparrowHawk and more....

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

(David Bingham) wrote in message . com...
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

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
. com...
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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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