If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "ADP"
writes: A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a motor. You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER. No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider. Let me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is NOT a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER! Allan Allan, Judy is the recognized expert on the FAR in this news group. When you go up against her about the FARs you need to reference your opinion or you have no validity. Judy always refers to the correct FAR to back up her statements. You should too. What is your reference for such a strong statement? According to my copy of FAR 1.1 General Definitions, both a glider an airplane would be considered aircraft because they are both, "...intended to be used for flight in the air." Robert Mudd |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
At 21:18 18 August 2003, Adp wrote:
I base the minimum equipment rules on the fact that there are many gliders flying today that do not meet minimum VFR requirements (of US FAR 91.205) They are not applicable to GLIDERS! Geez, Louise! By this rationale, VFR cloud clearances don't exist because everybody talks about being 'right there at cloudbase.' Look at any glider POH or placards, this is the MEL for a glider. It is irrelevant who the certificating authority is. Your Airworthiness certificate will have the operating requirements. Egad, we're about to digress into 91.213 on the topic of approved MELs, but I'll do as I'm told... Am looking at the POH for my glider - a 1981 ASW-20. Minimum Equipment list: ASI, altimeter and a 4-part Safety Harness. Additional equipment for cloud flying: a turn & bank, compass and VHF Transceiver. (A total aside to this discussion: the POH specifies make & model for each item. Some are no longer in production.) Incorporated into this glider's Experimental Airworthiness certificate is an Operating Limitations page - a boilerplate form issued by a west coast FAA office; it limits US ops to Day VFR only, with instrumentation as listed in FAR 91.205. You see, 91.205 - on the face of it - applies to powered aircraft including motorgliders certificated in the standard airworthiness category; depending on FAA-issued operating limitations, however, these and/or other instrumentation/equipment requirements may also apply to an individual aircraft issued an Experimental airworthiness certificate. Let me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is NOT a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER! You can say it 'till you're blue in the face, if you want. We already agree that in terms of aircraft category, a motorglider is a GLIDER. (Why are we shouting?) What you steadfastly refuse to believe is that in terms of 91.205 applicability, (1) a motorglider is also a 'powered aircraft' and (2) in certain instances, 91.205 can apply to an Experimental glider with or without a motor. Judy |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, let's talk about this rationally. The CFR 14 parts are interpreted
every day by so-called experts and they haven't the slightest clue about the meaning and intent of these rules. The aviation rules encompassed by CFR Title 14 were initially written to be permissive. That is, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by regulation, then it was assumed to be allowable. This attitude has been somewhat modified by our all knowing government but it is still extant. Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a powered aircraft, by definition. By definition, a powered aircraft is one that has an engine that operates continuously from take off to touchdown. Even though your motor glider can do this, it is not required to. Finding this information is akin to reading the Federalist Papers to discern what the founding fathers meant. But, it can be done. Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover, there are no FARs, no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is only the Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14 has parts with which you are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the aviation population is unaware of this. There are many Motor Gliders flying around with uncertified engines, by regulation, no powered aircraft can do so. I'll let Judy look up the appropriate reg. With no powered aircraft may you, for example, remove the wings, de or re-rig it. You may do so with your motor glider. With sustainer engines the engine is not even a required piece of equipment. How do you reconcile this with powered aircraft requirements? The rules that specify powered aircraft were written for continuously operating engines. For example, in a motor glider you are not required to arrive anywhere with any fuel reserves or any fuel at all! How do you reconcile this with regulations for powered aircraft? In powered aircraft, except in an emergency, you may not turn off an engine in flight. When you turn your motor glider off in flight do you then become subject to a different set of rules? The answer is no, you do not. The clincher is that, in states that levy personal property tax on aircraft, there is often an exception for gliders and a resultant lower levy. This lower levy applies to motor gliders. Do you think a state would voluntarily give up a source of revenue? With due deference to Judy (and truthfully, she and many others are a marvelous fount of knowledge on this board), you are all assuming facts not in evidence. Todd, I am shouting for emphasis. Roger, good questions and reasonable arguments. And for Judy, the elements of 14 CFR 91.205 do not apply to motor gliders since they are not powered aircraft. If you assume that 91.205 applies to motor gliders then you would also have to apply 14 CFR 91.213 and you would violate the CFRs every time you turned off your engine in flight. My motor glider limits the use of lights and certain other electrical components to 10% of the running time of the engine. Which CFR should I violate? Keeping my rotating beacon on or not adhering to the POH? Go back to the deliberations and exchanges associated with the 1997 changes to the FAR's. (Yes, they were FARs back then) to divine the intent of the current regulations. You will find that, at no point was it ever discussed or envisioned that motor gliders were to be powered aircraft under the statutes. Let the games begin! Allan "Robertmudd1u" wrote in message ... In article , "ADP" writes: A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a motor. You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER. No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider. Let me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is NOT a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER! Allan Allan, Judy is the recognized expert on the FAR in this news group. When you go up against her about the FARs you need to reference your opinion or you have no validity. Judy always refers to the correct FAR to back up her statements. You should too. What is your reference for such a strong statement? According to my copy of FAR 1.1 General Definitions, both a glider an airplane would be considered aircraft because they are both, "...intended to be used for flight in the air." Robert Mudd |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I know, go ahead and poke! Pokin at ya, pokin at ya, as what's her name
would say. I could only wish that it were true. I get questions all of the time about "FARs" and incorrect answers, as well. Being an obsessive-compulsive pilot, this is one of my crusades. So far, I've not made a single convert. Now with regard to dive brakes vs. spoilers........................... ;-} Allan "Mark James Boyd" wrote in message ... Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover, there are no FARs, no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is only the Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14 has parts with which you are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the aviation population is unaware of this. Man is it ever fun to poke at Allan! --this is a wink It's almost amazing, but whatever they're called, everyone seems to know what you mean...kinda like dive brakes vs. spoilers ;-P Oh boy, here it comes, another NEW thread!!! P.S. I think a lot of people know they're CFR's but find it much more fun to say FAR's and see who gets ALL RILED UP!!! ;-PPPPPP |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover,
there are no FARs, no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is only the Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14 has parts with which you are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the aviation population is unaware of this. Man is it ever fun to poke at Allan! --this is a wink It's almost amazing, but whatever they're called, everyone seems to know what you mean...kinda like dive brakes vs. spoilers ;-P Oh boy, here it comes, another NEW thread!!! P.S. I think a lot of people know they're CFR's but find it much more fun to say FAR's and see who gets ALL RILED UP!!! ;-PPPPPP |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, let's do that (talk rationally)....
First, get off the high horse concerning CFR versus FAR. You are correct, but the regs used to be called FARs and several FAA publications still call them that. Second, unless you can quote a specific reference in CFR 14, there is no definition of "powered aircraft". Powered-lift, yes, but not powered aircraft. Therefore a motor glider is a powered aircraft (when the motor is operating) as are dirigibles, helicopters, gyrocopters, and the everpresent airplane. A motorglider certainly can cause confusion, and there are "holes" in the regs. I think you will find the requirements for instrument and night flight clearly apply to the motorglider. Third, if an aircraft is certified with a specific configuration that is different than stated in the CFRs, then the certification takes precedence. Changing the aircraft configuration can result in the aircraft coming under a restriction that did not previously apply. The change (via an STC, or 337, or other method) will normally detail what the restrictions are. Finally, your assertion that 91.205 does not apply to motorgliders is incorrect. Read 205 carefully and you will see it does distinguishes between airplane and aircraft. While a motor glider is never an airplane it is a powered aircraft when operating under power. Similarly, a motorglider under power cannot claim right-of-way over an airplane because the motorglider is certificated in the glider category. Paul "ADP" wrote in message ... Ok, let's talk about this rationally. The CFR 14 parts are interpreted every day by so-called experts and they haven't the slightest clue about the meaning and intent of these rules. The aviation rules encompassed by CFR Title 14 were initially written to be permissive. That is, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by regulation, then it was assumed to be allowable. This attitude has been somewhat modified by our all knowing government but it is still extant. Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a powered aircraft, by definition. By definition, a powered aircraft is one that has an engine that operates continuously from take off to touchdown. Even though your motor glider can do this, it is not required to. Finding this information is akin to reading the Federalist Papers to discern what the founding fathers meant. But, it can be done. Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover, there are no FARs, no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is only the Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14 has parts with which you are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the aviation population is unaware of this. There are many Motor Gliders flying around with uncertified engines, by regulation, no powered aircraft can do so. I'll let Judy look up the appropriate reg. With no powered aircraft may you, for example, remove the wings, de or re-rig it. You may do so with your motor glider. With sustainer engines the engine is not even a required piece of equipment. How do you reconcile this with powered aircraft requirements? The rules that specify powered aircraft were written for continuously operating engines. For example, in a motor glider you are not required to arrive anywhere with any fuel reserves or any fuel at all! How do you reconcile this with regulations for powered aircraft? In powered aircraft, except in an emergency, you may not turn off an engine in flight. When you turn your motor glider off in flight do you then become subject to a different set of rules? The answer is no, you do not. The clincher is that, in states that levy personal property tax on aircraft, there is often an exception for gliders and a resultant lower levy. This lower levy applies to motor gliders. Do you think a state would voluntarily give up a source of revenue? With due deference to Judy (and truthfully, she and many others are a marvelous fount of knowledge on this board), you are all assuming facts not in evidence. Todd, I am shouting for emphasis. Roger, good questions and reasonable arguments. And for Judy, the elements of 14 CFR 91.205 do not apply to motor gliders since they are not powered aircraft. If you assume that 91.205 applies to motor gliders then you would also have to apply 14 CFR 91.213 and you would violate the CFRs every time you turned off your engine in flight. My motor glider limits the use of lights and certain other electrical components to 10% of the running time of the engine. Which CFR should I violate? Keeping my rotating beacon on or not adhering to the POH? Go back to the deliberations and exchanges associated with the 1997 changes to the FAR's. (Yes, they were FARs back then) to divine the intent of the current regulations. You will find that, at no point was it ever discussed or envisioned that motor gliders were to be powered aircraft under the statutes. Let the games begin! Allan "Robertmudd1u" wrote in message ... In article , "ADP" writes: A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a motor. You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER. No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider. Let me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is NOT a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER! Allan Allan, Judy is the recognized expert on the FAR in this news group. When you go up against her about the FARs you need to reference your opinion or you have no validity. Judy always refers to the correct FAR to back up her statements. You should too. What is your reference for such a strong statement? According to my copy of FAR 1.1 General Definitions, both a glider an airplane would be considered aircraft because they are both, "...intended to be used for flight in the air." Robert Mudd |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
FAR 61.93 only applies to "student pilots." This pilot is a
private pilot, not a student pilot. 61.93 does not apply to him. This pilot is certainly not a "private pilot - airplane." So what section is he operating under for 61.31(c)? Under section (2) or section (3)? If it's section (2) then he's got the instructor on board (receiving training, pretty hard to do while solo). If you say you aren't under (1), then under (3) you're going to need something in writing better than "Billy Bob CFI told me verbally it was ok." He has a written endorsement for solo in airplanes. What does the written endorsement say? Just "ok to solo stuff"? Is there a signature of a CFI and endorsement? No section number? Perhaps it says "OK to fly any plane anywhere?" So write me a sample endorsement. If it doesn't reference anything in the CFR, then the CFI is making up his own stuff. If it references some student pilot section, then it applies only to student pilots. If the guy says he isn't a student pilot, then the endorsement is invalid and we're back to 61.31(d)(1). We had a local private pilot - glider who wanted to take power lessons. Her CFI gave her some dual, and when it came time for solo, asked our local examiner. The DPE called the FSDO, the FSDO said she was a student pilot. Get her a medical and sign it as a student and write the endorsements out of the student pilot section of 61. This was a relief to the CFI, since the pilot also was not flight review current, and could have only gained such currency in a glider. Common sense also seems to hold up that a private pilot - glider with no flight review, no medical, no X-C endorsements and no X-C training or experience should not be flying from Watsonville to Tallahasee. Any CFI who writes an endorsement without citing a section, or without giving the required training, would be pretty bold. Any pilot who didn't comply with the section in the endorsement, because it didn't apply because he isn't a student pilot, would be violating section 61.31(d)(1). I pointed this out to the NPRM sport folks also. A glider sport pilot could be endorsed for J-3 cub sport license by a sport CFI without any X-C training. In the sport case this was explicit. NOT a good idea. Dunno if it's changed in the final version. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Judy Ruprecht... wrote:
snip, snip, snip because everybody talks about being 'right there at cloudbase.' Yeah, I've always wondered about that and I've decided I'm glad they don't listen to us on 123.3. I like being up there where it's cool and you can't see very far... Egad, we're about to digress into 91.213 on the topic of approved MELs, One of my favorites!! Fraught with landmines and cowpies. Incorporated into this glider's Experimental Airworthiness certificate is an Operating Limitations page - a boilerplate form issued by a west coast FAA office; it limits US ops to Day VFR only, with instrumentation as listed in FAR 91.205. Ahh, yes - the old "incorporated by reference" guidance springs to mind. Lucky you with the pre-1993 letter. I liked your previous post, Judy: "Aren't FAR's fun?" I sure think so!! Soon, I expect someone will post the FAR 1 definition of Glider... the one with the word "principally" in it. This is fun, but can we use apply the time spent cutting and pasting rules to our Wings program? I better get my 1-26 over here, I obviously need something to work on in the evenings. Jim |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
That's how I interpret it. (technically, he could "fly the
motorglider around the field" if he aerotowed for launch :-) The endorsement is for self-launch, not motorglider. Interestingly, one must have a seaplane rating to fly a seaplane (even if amphib and with the gear left down and only operated off runways). I think the "sea" and "land" should be ASE and AME endorsements (like aerotow or self-launch is to gliders), rather than checkrides. The cautious CFI may limit the solo endorsement by valid duration, distance from home, flight in alphabet airspace. I'm going to say it is more restrictive than that. If a pilot does not have category and class license, then he's a student pilot and follows all of those rules when flying a (non-experimental) category and class not on the current license. This means 61.89, 61.93, 61.87, 61.95 need to be followed. And no passengers allowed 61.89(a)(1). If a person comes to me for training, I don't write all these limitations when I solo them. They are in the regs. I only write endorsements in compliance with 61.87 and 61.93 as the training is complete. If it turns out later they had a private - glider and didn't tell me about it, I wouldn't add these limitations, I'd believe they were always in effect. I'd say that the pilot is NEVER "exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate with a glider category rating" while flying a non-experimental Cessna 152. So none of these privileges carry over. And be careful about 61.63. Students for additional ratings may have great experience, but when a CFI endorses that the student is proficient in the areas of operation, there'd better be a training endorsement. One instructor never gave X-C training to a multi who was adding a single-engine rating. Ooops. The guy ran out of gas AFTER he got his rating, because he had never switched tanks before. One gal failed her instrument checkride because she'd never done a hold. Ooops! Clearly the CFI endorsement was falsified. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ah, Todd, Todd. There you go using logic to demolish my arguments. How
unfair, how cruel! A perusal of AC 21.17-2a reveals, although it starts out by observing: Subject: TYPE CERTIFICATION--FIXEDWING GLIDERS (SAILPLANES), INCLUDING POWERED GLIDERS Date: 2/10/93 Initiated By: ACE-100 AC No: 21.17-2A Change: 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information and guidance concerning acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with § 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. 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 3.0 kg/m2 (0.62 lb./ft.2). NOTE: These criteria originated from JAR-22. h. Section 91.205 of the FAR. Powered gliders are considered to be powered aircraft for the purpose of complying with § 91.205. Oh how crushed am I as I search for Crow to eat. Oh how unkind this cruel world. A couple of caveats to recover as much of my ego as possible: 14 CFR 91.205 applies only to aircraft with "Standard" airworthiness certificates and When you turn your motor glider off in flight do you then become subject to a different set of rules? The answer is no, you do not. Agreed. You are subject to rules that apply to "aircraft" and to those that apply to "powered aircraft," but not any that apply only to "airplanes." Actually, it turns out that you do. If you turn off your engine, in my MG you lose everything electrical except a radio. You are now a pure glider and fly by glider rules. Incidentally there is no differentiation between glider and motor glider in the right of way rules. (14 CFR 91.113) So, you were (mostly) correct and I stand corrected. I apologize to you and to Judy for being strident as well as incorrect. But think of this, with out Lenny or Al, who is left but me to take shots at? Allan "Todd Pattist" wrote in message ... "ADP" wrote: Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a powered aircraft, by definition. So cite the definition you think applies. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|