Registration Airplane or Motorglider

"I've never met an ASEL pilot who couldn't safely fly a glider
in all the other (PTS) areas by the time he had learned to safely aerotow"

Except for "soaring techniques," I can't think of another area of the
PTS that isn't required in order to sign someone off for
aerotow.

5 ft rope break: MCA, stalls, and recovery, speed-to-fly,
normal and crosswind landings.

50 ft rope break (simulated): slip to a landing, off airport
landing.

200 ft rope break: steep turns with coordination, turns to a heading,
downwind landing, minimum sink speed.

So for me, by the time I sign anyone off for aerotow,
they're already safe to fly a glider in all the other (safety) areas.

Granted, not in all conditions, and not in all gliders are they safe,
but this is trivially true. I don't know any pilot who
is safe in all gliders in all conditions (although there are at
least two I can think of on this newsgroup who would argue
differently ;P).

Colin is talking about self-launch, a different launch technique,
but I'd be surprised if his instructor felt he could
safely self-launch before his coordination was good. Even in
self-launch, if the engine stops at XXX feet, isn't there a
turn back to the airport? Isn't this with a pretty good roll rate
and steep bank? Doesn't this require good coordination to ensure
safety? Wouldn't this be required before endorsing someone for
self-launch?

Does someone need to learn soaring techniques to safely fly a glider?
I didn't. Sure I learned steep turns, and we talked about
thermals, but I trained and was soloed (by a glider DPE) in calm air.
I never felt the least bit unsafe.

Are there any instructors who felt an ASEL transition pilot could
safely do all of the things for an aerotow endorsement but NOT safely
solo? This seems a little funny, since an ASEL transition pilot
with an aerotow endorsement can fly an experimental glider
solo under the current rules anyway (no cat/class required for PIC).
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I'm still surprised why the PW-5, Apis, and Sparrowhawk are 121 or 123 Knots
Vne. One would have thought the designers would jigger something enough to
reduce the Vne to 120 to meet this rule. I've had enough contact with these
and other manufacturers to notice that the potential marketing benefits of
Sport Pilot and LSA are only partially understood...


There is one little thing that I never heard anyone mention until OSH '04 and
that is, foreign made aircraft must come from a country that has a bi-lateral
airworthiness agreement with the USA. Had this requirement been more widely
known foreign manufactures might have had the time to get their governments to
conclude a bi-lateral agreement. I think those without are now working on this.


The LSA regulations were written mostly for the power plane crowd, it really
seems that glider stuff was stuck on almost as an after thought. I have yet to
read a good critique of why one would prefer the LSA glider over the non LSA
glider. Training minimums don't mean much because no CFI in their right mind
will sign you off until you are safe no matter what the minimum requirements
are. There are fewer restrictions, both in the capabilities of the glider and
the medical requirements with the non LSA route.

I think the potential benefits of LSA are understood. For the gliding community
I don't think they are very large. Mark, what do you see them as?

The real problem may be that we dealers and the soaring community as a whole
are not getting the word out to the LSA crowd that there is an alternative.
This lack of awareness is in part due to the fact that, here in the USA, other
than Soaring magazine, there are very few articles written in the popular
aviation press about soaring. The aviation periodicals market is deeply
segmented. One segment usually has no idea what the other segment is doing.

The German magazine Aerokurier prints articles on gliding every month, plus
skydiving and helicopters etc. I think that until recently there was no
national magazine dedicated to soaring.
In England, the fine magazine Today's Pilot always has gliding articles despite
its main focus on power flying. I can think of no U.S. based magazine that does
that.

As a sport we are not getting the word out.

Robert Mudd

Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.

The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
The Vne seems to be the discriminator.

Glider can have retractable gear. See slide 8 on the following link:
http://afs600.faa.gov/documents/PDF/...20Overview.pdf

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/


" wrote in message
...
Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.




The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
The Vne seems to be the discriminator.

"Well, one of the points was that certification as a glider means no
medical. My point was that certification as an Airplane-LSA
also means no medical."

As of this date, that is misleading. If you have been denied a medical by
the FAA, you cannot be certified under the LSA rules. This is a gaping hole
in the present rules that may be changed someday.

So, if you are a pilot with a medical and your medical was revoked, you are
limited to flying a glider and cannot fly an LSA - unless you go back to the
FAA and get a waiver or get your medical back. This is a case of the FAA
being worried about getting sued. It also means that if something happens
that causes you to believe that you will not get your medical, do not take a
FAA flight exam and do not tell the FAA. Let it lapse and then you can get
a LSA.

Colin N12HS





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04

" wrote in news:10pfmmr7ffv7l23
@corp.supernews.com:

Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.

The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
The Vne seems to be the discriminator.



Vne has nothing to do with Sport Pilot Lic or Light Sport Aircraft. The
top end speed limiter is the speed at "maximum continous power" at sea
level.

BeaglePig

Section 1.1

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or
powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to
meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for
operation on water...

(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (Vne) of not more than
120 knots CAS for a glider.

Perhaps BeaglePig was quoting:

(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous
power (Vh) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric
conditions at sea level.

which does apply to LSA other than gliders...

Unfortunately the synopses of LSA and SP put out by EAA and others,
as well as even the summarized FAA brochure, omit the special glider
Vne LSA definition, so it is easy to become misled...

Bruce Hoult wrote:
BeaglePig wrote:

Vne has nothing to do with Sport Pilot Lic or Light Sport Aircraft. The
top end speed limiter is the speed at "maximum continous power" at sea
level.

Which is 0 knots for any pure glider.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

In article ,
BeaglePig wrote:

" wrote in news:10pfmmr7ffv7l23
@corp.supernews.com:

Only the fixed gear ones. The rest would have to be fitted with floats.

The SGS 2-33, SZD 50-3, SGS 1-34, SGS 1-26, Std Libelle,
Open Cirrus, ASW-15, H301, etc. seem to all qualify.
Vne 120kts or less, under 1320lbs meets the requirements.
The Vne seems to be the discriminator.



Vne has nothing to do with Sport Pilot Lic or Light Sport Aircraft. The
top end speed limiter is the speed at "maximum continous power" at sea
level.

Which is 0 knots for any pure glider.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

First of all, thank you Robert for reading this and expressing interest
in LSA and Sport Pilot. I hope some of the things I write here
possibly are helpful or enhance some marketing opportunities for
you.

Robertmudd1u wrote:

I'm still surprised why the PW-5, Apis, and Sparrowhawk are 121 or 123 Knots
Vne. One would have thought the designers would jigger something enough to
reduce the Vne to 120 to meet this rule. I've had enough contact with these
and other manufacturers to notice that the potential marketing benefits of
Sport Pilot and LSA are only partially understood...


There is one little thing that I never heard anyone mention until OSH '04 and
that is, foreign made aircraft must come from a country that has a bi-lateral
airworthiness agreement with the USA. Had this requirement been more widely
known foreign manufactures might have had the time to get their governments to
conclude a bi-lateral agreement. I think those without are now working on this.

With so many other priorities, LSA snuck up on the FAA as well as the
rest of us. Both the Fresno and San Jose FSDOs in California were doing
a great job getting prepared for this, but they were not pushed the
info early from the top. There are a lot of wide ranging ramifications
of SP and LSA that are simply developing on the spot. To their credit,
the FAA management have given wide discretion to the SP branch to develop
policies, and these policies seem to be coming down heavily on the side
of less regulation (in most areas). I'm not familiar with the bi-lateral
agreements you write about, but suspect there are ways around this under LSA.
Perhaps if the kit is "completed" in the USA, and "industry
consensus standards" are followed, then the craft can be an LSA if all other
limitations are met. This could be as simple as a single bolt or
perhaps the canopy installed at the receiving end. Be careful, I am not an
A&P and can't speak with authority to this (maintenance) point regarding
LSA.

The LSA regulations were written mostly for the power plane crowd, it really
seems that glider stuff was stuck on almost as an after thought.
Very true. Already there have been a lot of changes (retract main wheel
allowed, stowable prop allowed) and I expect at least one more (3 hours
of training within 60 days changed to 3 glider flights within 60 days of the
proficiency check).

I have yet to
read a good critique of why one would prefer the LSA glider over the non LSA
glider. Training minimums don't mean much because no CFI in their right mind
will sign you off until you are safe no matter what the minimum requirements
are. There are fewer restrictions, both in the capabilities of the glider and
the medical requirements with the non LSA route.

The major changes a

Transition ASEL pilots and ASEL CFIs do not require any additional
FAA or DPE practical test to become an SP-Glider pilot or CFI.
The signatures of two CFIGs are sufficient to add glider-SP
privileges to an existing ASEL private or ASEL CFI license.

There are no discernible benefits for US pilots who have no license
whatsoever. These folks are just as well off with a Glider PPL as
a glider-SP license.

In terms of maintenance (and again in this area one is best to double
check my assertions carefully as I am not an A&P):

An LSA-glider can have the annual condition inspection done by the owner,
who has an LSA-Repairman-Inspection certificate gained by completing a
16 hour course.

This is different from a standard Airworthiness cert which requires
an IA annual. It is different from an experimental which requires
an A&P or repairman-builder cert. for the condition inspection.

There are those who say the buyer IS the builder. Fine. What
about when you sell your experimental? The new owner can do
the condition inspection if it is an LSA-experimental, by having
the LSA-repairman-inspection certificate gained at a 16 hour course.
If the glider is NOT an LSA-experimental but a regular
experimental, they're stuck with having an A&P do the condition
inspection. This means if the owner did maint. and logged it
over the year, but the A&P can't verify it, the A&P may not
sign it off as airworthy.

Now this next part is pretty sketchy, so hold on. It seems that
an LSA-glider can be used at a commercial operation legally,
much like a standard certificate. So folks can rent it out
or get instruction in it. As far as I know, for an experimental,
this requires an exemption which is fairly involved.

As far as I can tell, there are absolutely no downsides
to certifying a glider as LSA instead of another option (with one caveat).
The caveat is that if the glider can have or has a standard
airworthiness certificate (like a 2-22 or 2-33), downgrading this
to an LSA airworthiness certificate may increase the insurance or
reduce the value of the glider during subsequent sale (if the
new buyer isn't confident in the decreased maint. standards).

I think the potential benefits of LSA are understood.
I think the benefits are not understood, and in fact are at this
point not even quantifiable.

I have no idea how many additional transition pilots will take this
option because there is no check ride. I also don't know
how important the extra cost of an A&P vs. do it yourself inspections
will be to glider pilots.

I do know I will be transitioning several ASEL CFIs to become
SP-Glider-CFIs after Jan 15th, and this will create a much
larger pool of potential instructors at our club.

For the gliding community
I don't think they are very large. Mark, what do you see them as?
I think a real problem in General Aviation as a whole is the
rampant overqualification of instructors. Airplane Single Engine Land (ASEL)
CFIs must have a Private, Commercial, Instrument, and Instructor
license before teaching even one hour of day VFR in a 65hp Piper Cub.

This is absurd. The Sport Pilot rule fixes this by
eliminating the Commercial and Instrument ratings. One can now
take only two check rides (instead of four) and then instruct in
a Cub. Getting rid of the very involved instrument training is
a real boon to this path to becoming a CFI.

What does this have to do with gliding? Well, a LOT of CFIGs
started as ASEL CFIs. After paying for all that training and
four (ummm...wait, SIX) checkrides to be a CFIG, do you think
they're going to instruct in gliders for $10/hour? No way.

So what if it's now only 2 checkrides? ASEL PVT and then
ASEL-SP-CFI? Then no checkride, just CFI signatures, mano-a-mano.
S**t rolls downhill. Less s**t on the CFIs, less $$$$s of cost
passed on for the students. Sounds like good 'ol Reaganomics
to me

Now look at the other part. An ASEL private pilot walks into
one of the FBOs in California with an LSA glider (about half of them
have LSAs). He can now get a glider-SP rating in a day, with no
FAA checkride. How cool is that? How many more pilots do
you draw into gliding with that? I like this idea.


****SIDEBAR*****
OK, OK, who cares about the piper cub? Keep in mind this is a developing
rule. I'd be quite surprised if the Cezzna-152 doesn't get folded
into SP within 3 years...


The real problem may be that we dealers and the soaring community as a whole
are not getting the word out to the LSA crowd that there is an alternative.
This lack of awareness is in part due to the fact that, here in the USA, other
than Soaring magazine, there are very few articles written in the popular
aviation press about soaring. The aviation periodicals market is deeply
segmented. One segment usually has no idea what the other segment is doing.

The is a whole new SP and LSA magazine, just started publication.
Robert, if you don't have an ad in there, I think you
are missing out on the most active, big disposable income potential
clients in sport aviation.

The German magazine Aerokurier prints articles on gliding every month, plus
skydiving and helicopters etc. I think that until recently there was no
national magazine dedicated to soaring.
In England, the fine magazine Today's Pilot always has gliding articles despite
its main focus on power flying. I can think of no U.S. based magazine that does
that.

I read SP and LSA mag, not a single article on gliders. Is the
SZD rep asleep? I saw balloons, gyrocopters, ultralights. I think
even that Donkey from Shrek was flying a Luscombe :P
Dr. Jack and the Sparrowhawk guys seem to be marketing to
larger audiences. I'm surprised the glider manufacturers as a whole
seem to marketing to people who...are already glider pilots.

As a sport we are not getting the word out.
Don't look at me. If you asked 100 of my closest friends
about gliders, they'd tell you it's all I ever talk about
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

COLIN LAMB wrote:
"Well, one of the points was that certification as a glider means no
medical. My point was that certification as an Airplane-LSA
also means no medical."

As of this date, that is misleading. If you have been denied a medical by
the FAA, you cannot be certified under the LSA rules. This is a gaping hole
in the present rules that may be changed someday.

So, if you are a pilot with a medical and your medical was revoked, you are
limited to flying a glider and cannot fly an LSA - unless you go back to the
FAA and get a waiver or get your medical back. This is a case of the FAA
being worried about getting sued. It also means that if something happens
that causes you to believe that you will not get your medical, do not take a
FAA flight exam and do not tell the FAA. Let it lapse and then you can get
a LSA.

The "previously denied a medical" part of Sport Pilot is quite a bone
in the craw of EAA. I suspect it will be resolved soon. As I don't know
how many glider pilots fly gliders specifically because they have failed
an official FAA medical, I can't speak to whether this is a worthy
subject or a very minor footnote of the rule...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd