Update on the SparrowHawk and more....

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...


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.

Vaughn




Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
classes of Aircraft are certified.
Part 103 covers things that fly , uncertified. Don't try to misconstrue
writing of the laws that predate the existance
of Part 103. 103 was added to eliminate the confusion in terms and to get
the FEDS out of regulating ultralights.
I agree that we shouldn't create laws that don't exist. But the facts are
that under 91.309, you can't
tow a Sparrowhawk without a waiver because it is not a glider conforming
with part 91 unless it carries an N reg number.
This is no different than trying to tow a Swift, Tempest, Superfloater or
similar bird.

Scott.

"plasticguy" wrote in message
...

OK Scott, strictly in the interest of getting this thing right, I honestly
don't want to get anybody's dander up.

Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
classes of Aircraft are certified.

Further study where? Can you give us a reference?

Part 103 covers things that fly , uncertified. Don't try to misconstrue
writing of the laws that predate the existance
of Part 103. 103 was added to eliminate the confusion in terms and to get
the FEDS out of regulating ultralights.
I agree that we shouldn't create laws that don't exist.

But the facts are that under 91.309, you can't
tow a Sparrowhawk without a waiver because it is not a glider conforming
with part 91 unless it carries an N reg number.

Perhaps I am dense; here is part 91.309 in its entirety; please indicate the
part where is says that the glider being towed must be registered.

Sec. 91.309

Towing: Gliders.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft towing a glider unless--
(1) The pilot in command of the towing aircraft is qualified under Sec.
61.69 of this chapter;
(2) The towing aircraft is equipped with a tow-hitch of a kind, and
installed in a manner, that is approved by the Administrator;
(3) The towline used has breaking strength not less than 80 percent of the
maximum certificated operating weight of the glider and not more than twice
this operating weight. However, the towline used may have a breaking
strength more than twice the maximum certificated operating weight of the
glider if--
(i) A safety link is installed at the point of attachment of the towline to
the glider with a breaking strength not less than 80 percent of the maximum
certificated operating weight of the glider and not greater than twice this
operating weight.
(ii) A safety link is installed at the point of attachment of the towline to
the towing aircraft with a breaking strength greater, but not more than 25
percent greater, than that of the safety link at the towed glider end of the
towline and not greater than twice the maximum certificated operating weight
of the glider;
(4) Before conducting any towing operation within the lateral boundaries of
the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace
designated for an airport, or before making each towing flight within such
controlled airspace if required by ATC, the pilot in command notifies the
control tower. If a control tower does not exist or is not in operation, the
pilot in command must notify the FAA flight service station serving that
controlled airspace before conducting any towing operations in that
airspace; and
(5) The pilots of the towing aircraft and the glider have agreed upon a
general course of action, including takeoff and release signals, airspeeds,
and emergency procedures for each pilot.
(b) No pilot of a civil aircraft may intentionally release a towline, after
release of a glider, in a manner that endangers the life or property of
another.


Respectfully;
Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...
OK Scott, strictly in the interest of getting this thing right, I
honestly
don't want to get anybody's dander up.

Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
classes of Aircraft are certified.

Further study where? Can you give us a reference?


Hi Vaughn.
Lets try this. I hope it helps......

The FAA sees 2 things in the air. Aircraft and Ultralight vehicles.

Far 103 defines ultralights

Far 91.1 says that part 91 covers operations of AIRCRAFT and specifically
excludes part 103 vehicles.

FAR 91.203 says no aircraft may be operated unless it has a current
airworthiness certificate and is registered.

FAR 91.309 says that weak links and tow ropes are specified by the maximum
certificated operating weight
of the glider. (This data is found on the airworthiness certificate)

91.309 says that ONLY GLIDERS (aircraft conforming to part 91 including
registration and certification requirements)
may be towed.

91.311 says that anything else to be towed (undefined stuff like banners,
ultralights, barges) by an aircraft
may only be done by waiver from the administrator.


I hope this makes it clear that a Sparrowhawk, operating under part 103,
does not fall under 91.309,
but instead falls under 91.311 REQUIRING a waiver to tow.

Sparrowhawks operating under part 91, may be towed just like any other
glider.

Scott.

"plasticguy" wrote in message
...


91.309 says that ONLY GLIDERS (aircraft conforming to part 91 including
registration and certification requirements)
may be towed.

91.311 says that anything else to be towed (undefined stuff like banners,
ultralights, barges) by an aircraft
may only be done by waiver from the administrator.

You're inventing the stuff inside your parens. The Sparrowhawk meets the
explicit legal definition of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.

Michael McNulty wrote:

The Sparrowhawk meets the explicit legal definition
of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.

A reasonable definition, yes. A legal definition is another thing, especially
when it comes from an administrative source such as the FAA.

Do we have case on point to use as a precedent, or are we just chasing our tails?



Jack

Jack wrote:
Michael McNulty wrote:

The Sparrowhawk meets the explicit legal definition
of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.

A reasonable definition, yes. A legal definition is another thing,
especially when it comes from an administrative source such as the FAA.

Do we have case on point to use as a precedent, or are we just chasing
our tails?

There are soaring operations quite happy to tow the SparrowHawk, having
satisfied themselves it is both legal and insured to do so, which
establishes a precedent satisfactory to me.

Not exactly a precedent, but Tom Seim reported this info in a May 6 2004
posting):

I contacted the Spokane FSDO and spoke to Chuck Roberts (800-341-2623)
about this. He did not think there was any problem towing ultralights,
providing they were compatible with the tow plane (Vne). The
definition of glider and aircraft does not include any mention of
certification, so an ultra-light is an aircraft and an ultra-light
glider is a glider per the FARs. He did allow that the FARs do refer
to ultra-lights as "vehicles" instead of aircraft. He said the purpose
here is to prevent ultra-lights from becoming entangled with other
FARs that cover "aircraft". Chuck said that if you want to get the
issue resolved you can write him (or any FSDO) a letter requesting a
clarification of the FARs. This would then be forwarded to FAA legal
who would (eventually) issue a ruling. Also, the tow plane operator
can request a waiver to tow ultra-lights, but the waiver would only be
valid for that particular tow plane.

So, I do think there is some tail-chasing going on. I suggest people
adamant about their interpretations do as Tom did, contact their FSDO,
then report the result.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mike McN - I disagree with your interpretation. In my reading of the regs,
an ultralight vehicle cannot be classified as any category of aircraft, even
if it looks like a glider. Since there is no minimum weight for a glider,
you can certainly register one like the Sparrowhawk, but then it becomes a
glider (a category of aircraft) and ceases its life as an ultralight! It
then has to meet all the appropriate regulations. The FAA is quite clear
about this and has published several notes to this effect. This is also
contrary to the interpretation of Eric's FSDO.

Towing of gliders is clearly described in the FARs, whereas towing of
ultralights is not. Presumably the drafters of the regulations never
considered the possibility that an unlicensed unregistered ultralight would
want to be towed by an airplane.

It's also quite clear that the FARs have some ambiguity, since we can't
agree on their interpretation. Since towing ultralights is a gray area that
needs clarification, your local friendly FSDO is the place to get this.

You might find, however, that interpretation of the FARs varies between
interpretors!

I'd want to get something in writing!

Mike


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
Michael McNulty wrote:

The Sparrowhawk meets the explicit legal definition
of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.

A reasonable definition, yes. A legal definition is another thing,
especially when it comes from an administrative source such as the FAA.

Do we have case on point to use as a precedent, or are we just chasing
our tails?

There are soaring operations quite happy to tow the SparrowHawk, having
satisfied themselves it is both legal and insured to do so, which
establishes a precedent satisfactory to me.

Not exactly a precedent, but Tom Seim reported this info in a May 6 2004
posting):

I contacted the Spokane FSDO and spoke to Chuck Roberts (800-341-2623)
about this. He did not think there was any problem towing ultralights,
providing they were compatible with the tow plane (Vne). The
definition of glider and aircraft does not include any mention of
certification, so an ultra-light is an aircraft and an ultra-light
glider is a glider per the FARs. He did allow that the FARs do refer
to ultra-lights as "vehicles" instead of aircraft. He said the purpose
here is to prevent ultra-lights from becoming entangled with other
FARs that cover "aircraft". Chuck said that if you want to get the
issue resolved you can write him (or any FSDO) a letter requesting a
clarification of the FARs. This would then be forwarded to FAA legal
who would (eventually) issue a ruling. Also, the tow plane operator
can request a waiver to tow ultra-lights, but the waiver would only be
valid for that particular tow plane.

So, I do think there is some tail-chasing going on. I suggest people
adamant about their interpretations do as Tom did, contact their FSDO,
then report the result.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Michael McNulty" wrote in message
news:Wkayc.11473$fZ1.2212@fed1read03...
You're inventing the stuff inside your parens. The Sparrowhawk meets the
explicit legal definition of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.



Hi Mike.
Please read this to cover a part 103 Sparrowhawk, not a part 23/91
Sparrowhawk, which is a normal "sailplane" as we recognise them.

I put the stuff in parens because I wrote it. But that doesn't mean that
it is incorrect. Far part 1 defines a glider as something that flys that is
unpowered. It makes no references to certified or non-certified. So yes,
the
Sparrowhawk is a glider in broad terms. NOW about it being covered as
a towable object under far 91.309. I contend that it isn't. That's because
all of Part 91 is written around certified aircraft. The reference to
glider found in 91.309
is constrained by the definitions in part 91 that limit its scope to
certified aircraft.
See the limitations in 91.203 that say all aircraft operated must have a
certificate of
airworthiness. Registration is also required.
Now since the Sparrowhawk under part 103 is specifically excluded from part
91
in 91.1 you cannot apply 91.309 to it. SSSOOO 91.311 becomes the FAR in
play
if you wish to tow it. This specifically states that a WAIVER IS REQUIRED.

I hope this removes any lack of clarity.

Scott.

"Michael Stringfellow" writes:

Mike McN - I disagree with your interpretation. In my reading of
the regs, an ultralight vehicle cannot be classified as any category
of aircraft, even if it looks like a glider. Since there is no
minimum weight for a glider, you can certainly register one like the
Sparrowhawk, but then it becomes a glider (a category of aircraft)
and ceases its life as an ultralight!

The preamble of the FARs includes the DEFINITION of a glider, and the
Sparrowhawk meets that 100%. As you said, there is no minimum weight.
It IS a glider, that is the LAW. Interpretation not needed.

FAR 91 and friends talks about towing a GLIDER, *not*, Glider other
than an Ultralight Glider, so it covers ALL gliders.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message
...
"Michael Stringfellow" writes:

FAR 91 and friends talks about towing a GLIDER, *not*, Glider other
than an Ultralight Glider, so it covers ALL gliders.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Paul.
Far 91 specifically excludes part 103 aircraft in FAR 91.1
All references in Part 91 are to certified aircraft carrying
airworthiness certificates. The reference to Glider in FAR 91
has been narrowed by FAR 91.203 to be a certified aircraft.
A glider is a class of aircraft, anything flying under FAR103
is an AIR VEHICLE, not an aircraft.
I know things can be confusing looking at it from the bottom of the world
(smile) but if you read what is written and not what you want to see, you'll
be better off.
This request for info from theFEDS might help.


Here is my request to the FAA:
Subject: Regulations
From: Bob Comperini
To: FAA
Date: 12/18/1998 8:56 AM


Greetings,

I am an active ultralight flight instructor with the United States
Ultralight Association.

As you know, ultralights are regulated by FAR Part 103.

Quite often, I get asked the question whether or not ultralights are also
subject to other FAR's (such as Part 91, VFR rules, etc.). This question
comes up a lot because in FAR Part 103, ultralights are defined as
"vehicles" (not "aircraft"). Other regulations, including Part 91, talk
about "aircraft".

Some people think this means that ultralights are exempt from any portion
of this regulation, solely because of the words "aircraft" .vs. "vehicle".

When I train students, I make them very much aware of Part 91, and tell
them that pertinent parts of this regulation should also be followed (even
if we're not required to), for safety reasons, if nothing else. (As an
example, 91.159 - VFR Cruising altitudes).

Can you give me any guidance (or references) where I can get these terms
("vehicle" and "aircraft") clarified? Why did Part 103 call ultralights
"vehicles"? How would you answer the question of whether or not Part 103
ultralights are "exempt" from any other FAR?

Thanks in advance.
Here is the response I received from the FAA:
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:34:47 -0500
From:
To:
Subject: Regulation

Can you give me any guidance (or references) where I can get these terms
("vehicle" and "aircraft") clarified?

Sure. The term "aircraft is defined in FAR Part 1. It says, "Aircraft"
means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
The term "vehicle" and "ultralight" is not defined in FAR Part 1.

One could interpret the definition of "aircraft" to also include
ultralights
since they are indeed a device intended to be used for flight. But, in the
preamble to the original FAR 103 (as published in the Federal Register on
Sept.
2, 1982) we state that ultralights would not be considered aircraft for
purposes
of airworthiness certification and registration nor would their operators be
subject to the same pilot certification and operational requirements as
aircraft
operators. FAR 103 does not require airman/aircraft certification or vehicle
registration but, rather, is premised on the absolute minimum regulation
necessary to ensure safety in the public interest. We used the word
"vehicle"
since the common meaning of the word is a device or structure for
transporting persons or things. We purposely did not want the word
aircraft used in the context of describing an ultralight.

Some people think this means that ultralights are exempt from any
portion of this regulation, solely because of the words "aircraft" .vs.
"vehicle".

And they're right. Ultralight operators are *NOT* subject to any
regulation other than FAR Part 103. That regulation contains all the
operational conditions and limitations necessary to ensure safety in
the public interest. Part 91, as you point out, pertains to aircraft.
In fact 91.1(a) specifically excludes ultralights. That section states:
"(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and Sec.
91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft
(other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned
free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and
ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this
chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3
autical miles of the U.S. coast."

I don't disagree with you teaching ultralight operators about other FARs
such as 91, 135, etc. Even though 103 is the only regulation that applies
to them, some basic knowledge of other regulations probably doesn't hurt.
Ditto other FAA documents such as the AIM, etc.

Best Regards

Rick Cremer, Aviation Safety Inspector (Ops and AWS)The FAA has gone on
record here in print.Scott.