I have my new Sparrow Hawk

then go tell my insurance company that I am wrong... if it doesn't have an
FAA document (certification) in the "aircraft" that says it's a "glider"..
I'm not towing it. It's an ultralight, and FAR91.311 says I can only tow
according to 91.309, and 91.309 says "glider", I can't tow ultralights.

BT

"ADP" wrote in message
...
It is always fascinating to me how people make up or interpret regulations
to fit their preconceived notions.

14 CFR 1 Definitions:

"Glider means 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."

It seems to me that any vehicle capable of carrying a person, regardless
of
weight,
that uses gravity as its principle means of staying aloft, meets the
definition of
a glider. I see no regulation that requires certification or that an
ultralight can
not also be a glider.

The original intent of the FARs was to be permissive rather than
restrictive.
Thus, if it is not specifically prohibited, it can be presumed, within
reason,
to be permitted.

So, Eric is right and Btiz is wrong.

Allan


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message

BITZ
so would their policy be in force if an FAR is violated?

I can't find where the regulations says an aircraft has to be certified
to
be a glider. What is the CFR number for that? I mean, clearly it's a
glider, or is there a CFR that requires an aircraft to weight over 155
pounds before it's can qualify as a glider?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Brian... read 91.311, it says you can't tow ANYTHING (banners, whatever)
without a waiver, except as outlined in 91.309. 91.309 is the "glider tow"
endorsement.

Our insurance carrier has made it clear that without an airworthy
certification that says "glider" we are not covered. Arguments about FARs
are open to debate, that's why we have lawyers.

BT


"Brian Case" wrote in message
om...
Actually it would be more reasonable to argue the other direction.

I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
fly it.

I do not recall any regulation concerning towing of ultralight
vehicals so It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able to
Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required. They would have
to be careful not to be receiving any compensation for doing so.

Just because it might be allowed by the regulations does not make it
safe or reasonable to try it. Insurance wording is an entirely
different matter.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL



First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an
N-number
and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"

If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow pilots
at
their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else,
if
they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
"glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of FARs
and
most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point in
time
it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.

JMHO
BT

Block A reads: "CATEGORY/PURPOSE Experimental"
"PURPOSE Operating Amateur-Built Aircraft (Glider)

A typewriter was used to enter the data on the certificate. Maybe the
entries are not as standardized as we would assume.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


Yeah, maybe not very standardized - but the word glider is there. The Order
also says if it's a balloon, it should have the word Balloon in
parentheses - apparently this annotation of type on the Special
Airworthiness Certificate is to help the FAA to know that no medical is
needed (!!??) - at least that's what it says in the Order. There will
certainly be differences between Special Airworthiness Certificates typed up
before 1993 and after 1993 - quite a change in the guidance that year.

On another note, I saw a notice in the Federal Register last Friday -
actually a Final Rule - that says if one does not print or type one's name
on the temporary registration certificate as required by the rule,
instructions, order, guidance, etc. - then the registration certificate will
not be processed and then one would be in a heap o' trouble. It appears one
must sign the form with your signature AND print or type your name on the
form.

Hard to believe they had to go to the Federal Register on this one!! If you
get bored with RAS, you can always read the FR for fun, or maybe load up Dr.
Jacks and pray for a change in the forecast. If you really want to have some
fun, go find the FAR Preambles on the web and read the true meaning of
towing an ultralight, it's kinda fun - but very difficult to find.

Back to sanding wing tips now...

Jim

further review of Part 103 was recommended.. So I read the entire 3 pages.
I only see two types of Ultralights.. Powered and Unpowered, and no where
anywhere in Part 103 did I find a reference to an "Ultralight glider"

So... if operating under Part 103, it's an ultralight and gives way to all
aircraft.
If you want to be called a glider, then I'm thinking you want to operate
under Part 91 which means you need an airworthiness certificate. And Part
91.309 says I can only tow "glider" , not an unpowered ultra light. That
would fall into that other category under 91.311.

Also, there is no definition for "ultralight" in FAR 1.1, that definition
only exists in Part 103

Part 103 also says no pilot certification to fly an "ultralight" is
required, so how can I properly assess that any "pilot" that shows up with
an "ultra light" can actually fly it.

I've always liked the design of the Sparrowhawk and would love to have one.
If and when I do, I'll take the extra time to get the certifications to fly
under Part 91.

BT

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:_rgmc.12051$k24.7723@fed1read01...
Brian... read 91.311, it says you can't tow ANYTHING (banners, whatever)
without a waiver, except as outlined in 91.309. 91.309 is the "glider
tow"
endorsement.

Our insurance carrier has made it clear that without an airworthy
certification that says "glider" we are not covered. Arguments about FARs
are open to debate, that's why we have lawyers.

BT


"Brian Case" wrote in message
om...
Actually it would be more reasonable to argue the other direction.

I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
fly it.

I do not recall any regulation concerning towing of ultralight
vehicals so It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able to
Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required. They would have
to be careful not to be receiving any compensation for doing so.

Just because it might be allowed by the regulations does not make it
safe or reasonable to try it. Insurance wording is an entirely
different matter.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL



First I will ask a question, Is the Sparrow Hawk registered with an
N-number
and does it have an Airworthiness Cert that it is a "glider"

If not your club needs to re-look at it's insurance, and your tow
pilots
at
their ratings.. They are certified to tow gliders, not any thing else,
if
they are towing an ultra light that is not certified by the FAA as a
"glider" and has an N-number registration, they are in violation of
FARs
and
most likely the tow plane's insurance is in violation. At that point
in
time
it matters not if the "ultra light" has insurance or not.

JMHO
BT

what Jim... no links?

BT

"Jim Phoenix" wrote in message
...

Block A reads: "CATEGORY/PURPOSE Experimental"
"PURPOSE Operating Amateur-Built Aircraft (Glider)

A typewriter was used to enter the data on the certificate. Maybe the
entries are not as standardized as we would assume.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


Yeah, maybe not very standardized - but the word glider is there. The
Order
also says if it's a balloon, it should have the word Balloon in
parentheses - apparently this annotation of type on the Special
Airworthiness Certificate is to help the FAA to know that no medical is
needed (!!??) - at least that's what it says in the Order. There will
certainly be differences between Special Airworthiness Certificates typed
up
before 1993 and after 1993 - quite a change in the guidance that year.

On another note, I saw a notice in the Federal Register last Friday -
actually a Final Rule - that says if one does not print or type one's name
on the temporary registration certificate as required by the rule,
instructions, order, guidance, etc. - then the registration certificate
will
not be processed and then one would be in a heap o' trouble. It appears
one
must sign the form with your signature AND print or type your name on the
form.

Hard to believe they had to go to the Federal Register on this one!! If
you
get bored with RAS, you can always read the FR for fun, or maybe load up
Dr.
Jacks and pray for a change in the forecast. If you really want to have
some
fun, go find the FAR Preambles on the web and read the true meaning of
towing an ultralight, it's kinda fun - but very difficult to find.

Back to sanding wing tips now...

Jim

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:frhmc.12063$k24.9961@fed1read01...
what Jim... no links?

Jeez... I didn't think anyone was really interested in reading this stuff!

Just google GPO for the Federal Register, and you can get the 8130.2E at
faa.gov.

Jim

well... Jim.. I meant the ultralight tow issue..

whatwhichwhose wing tips?

BT

"Jim Phoenix" wrote in message
...

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:frhmc.12063$k24.9961@fed1read01...
what Jim... no links?

Jeez... I didn't think anyone was really interested in reading this stuff!

Just google GPO for the Federal Register, and you can get the 8130.2E at
faa.gov.

Jim

I haven't looked it up but if I recall my definitions the FAA does not
consider an ultralight vehical to be an Aircraft. While It may meet
the definiation of a glider, if meets the definition of an ultralight
the FAA does not reconginize it as an aircraft and as a result it does
not need to be registered, Certified or require a Pilot Certificate to
fly it.


On the contrary, there is absolutely nothing in Part 103 saying that
an ultralight vehicle is not an aircraft. It is one, in accordance
with the definition of an Aircraft in 14 CFR Part 1.1.

Part 103 exempts ultralight vehicles from the requirements that would
otherwise apply to aircraft under 14 CFR. For example,
"Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of
aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their
component parts and equipment are not required to meet the
airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to
have certificates of airworthiness." Note that it does not suggest
that ultralight vehicles are not aircraft, it merely exempts them from
the standards and requirement for certificates of airworthiness.


It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able
to
Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required.


Again, on the contrary, 14 CFR 91.311 requires an exemption to use an
aircraft to tow anything other than a glider, and a glider can only be
towed subject to the relevant requirements.

It does seem to me that the FAA wanted to stay away from having
anything to do with ultralight vehicles, and probably didn't have in
mind the possibility that one might be towed by a certificated
aircraft. So certainly if substantial amounts of common sense aren't
applied by pilots themselves and people start towing hang gliders with
Pawnees, the FAA is likely to feel compelled to step in. Hang glider
pilots, in general, seem to have a fair understanding of what would
happen to a flexwing towed at 70 knots, and Pawnee pilots probably
have enough common sense not to try it, but then again to paraphrase
someone or other, no-one ever got rich by over-estimating the
intelligence of the public...

And Jim Phoenix is right: there IS a requirement that an Experimental
glider should have (Glider) in the Category/Designation block. The
reason, oddly, is to "ensure appropriate application of 14 CFR Part 61
.... concerning the medical requirements for the operation of such
aircraft."

"BTIZ" wrote in message news:Uhhmc.12061

Also, there is no definition for "ultralight" in FAR 1.1, that definition
only exists in Part 103


The definitions in 14 CFR Part 1.1 cover Part 103.

It could be argued that as far as the regulations are
concerned there are no tow pilot requirements for towing ultralight
vehicals. As such a newly licensed recreational Pilot might be able

to

Tow ultralight vehicals with no endorsements required.



Again, on the contrary, 14 CFR 91.311 requires an exemption to use an
aircraft to tow anything other than a glider, and a glider can only be
towed subject to the relevant requirements.


It looks like the USHGA has an exemption No. 4144 from the FAA that
covers the towing of unpowered ultralight aircraft by powered ultralight
aircraft where both aircraft would be operating under part 103 There
are a lot of requirements spelled out under the USHGA rules part 104
that cover required pilot training and also related to equipment and
which the exemption requires be met. See:

http://www.ushga.org/104-part-2.asp#4144

The case where a towplane operating under part 61 and 91 would be towing
an unpowered ultralight that was not registered, and therefore operating
under part 103, would appear to have been not accounted for under either
part 103 or part 61 and 91 and likely appears to be not allowed without
another waiver, at least on the part of the towplane operating under
part 61 and 91.



It does seem to me that the FAA wanted to stay away from having
anything to do with ultralight vehicles, and probably didn't have in
mind the possibility that one might be towed by a certificated
aircraft. So certainly if substantial amounts of common sense aren't
applied by pilots themselves and people start towing hang gliders with
Pawnees, the FAA is likely to feel compelled to step in. Hang glider
pilots, in general, seem to have a fair understanding of what would
happen to a flexwing towed at 70 knots, and Pawnee pilots probably
have enough common sense not to try it, but then again to paraphrase
someone or other, no-one ever got rich by over-estimating the
intelligence of the public...


This is almost exactly what they say in U.S. DOT FAA Advisory Circular 103-7
see http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/AC103-7/ac103-7.html

They mainly care about protecting the non-flying public, and other
members of the flying public using the same airspace, but:

"Part 103 is based on the assumption that any individual who elects
to fly an ultralight vehicle has assessed the dangers involved and
assumes personal responsibility for his/her safety."

" e. You are Responsible for the Future Direction the Federal
Government Takes
With Respect to Ultralight Vehicles, The actions of the ultralight
community
will affect the direction Government takes in future regulations.
The safety
record of ultralight vehicles will be the foremost factor in
determining the need
for further regulations."