Is a motorglider a "powered aircraft"

Todd... on further personal research... you may be correct..
BT

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
I'm inclined to disagree with BTIZ and Andy, but I agree
it's an interesting question. I'd ask the Chief Counsel's
Office of the FAA and Lynch.

I'd analyze it this way -

It's well accepted that a motorglider is a "powered
aircraft" at least for the purpose of compliance with FAR
91.205. I believe I've seen other FAR interpretations where
motorgliders are considered to be "powered aircraft," but
not airplanes. As a result, prior to this question, I've
always assumed that the term "powered aircraft" when used in
the FARs always swept in motorgliders.

Thus, we have to decide for the purpose of FAR
61.69 (which says that "no person may act as pilot in
command for towing a glider unless that person: (1) holds at
least a private pilot certificate with a category rating for
powered aircraft") whether a glider rating is a "private
pilot certificate with a category rating for powered
aircraft."

Strange as it may seem, my answer would be yes. A private
pilot with only a glider category rating can legally fly a
motorglider, and a motorglider has always been considered by
the FAA to be a "powered aircraft."

Andy posted that a self launch signoff is not a rating. I
agree, but I think the underlying glider rating qualifies as
a "category rating for powered aircraft" since it legally
allows you to fly a motorglider. Thus, I would say that if
you do not have a self-launch signoff, you could launch by
aerotow, start the engine in the air, and pick up the glider
to be towed by the old flyby ground snatch technique. :-)


"BTIZ" wrote:

I would tend to agree with Andy on this one..

It would be interesting to get an official FAA ruling in writing.

BT

"Andy" wrote in message
roups.com...
Very interesting question and obvious that FAA did not consider towing
with motor gliders when this rule was drafted.

In my opinion, if your pilot certificate says "ratings - glider" then
you do not hold a category rating for powered aircraft. A self launch
endorsement is not a rating. If you were grandfathered, like me, you
wouldn't even have the endorsement. On the other hand if you have a
rating for single engine land you could be qualified to tow, but not to
fly the motor glider. To meet the letter of 61.69 you would need to
rated in gliders and SEL (or other powered aircraft).

The question does not seem to have been asked in the AFS FAQ ref:

http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc

Try email to John Lynch for an interpretation (address is in the ref
above)


Andy


Greg K. wrote:
My apologies. I meant to be more specific in request below. I know
the
discussion about a motorglider being "powered aircraft" with regard
to
14 CFR 91.205. I am asking whether a motorglider is a powered
aircraft
with regard to pilot certification. Can a Private Pilot-Glider tow?

Greg

It's guys like Bob C. that make the USA the
land of the free and the home of the brave.

By that I mean the land where he is free to
do things that the rest of us find a bit...er...quirky
...but very exciting.

and home of the brave (HIM) who are willing to
try it out.

God Bless you, Bob. You have some big stones, man.


At 00:00 13 May 2005, Bob C wrote:
Very interesting question. I'm not sure of the answer,
but I do appreciate the post that showed the AC with
a definition of 'motorglider'. I've been looking for
that one since I started the jet sailplane project.
I have every intention of stretching the limits.
How about a 250 MPH twin jet motorglider with a 400
mile range? Can be flown on a glider license without
a medical.

BTW, I routinely tow behind a helicopter at airshows.
I endorsed the helicopter pilot's logbook for towing
after simulated tows in a C150/150. At that time I
had never even flown a helicopter. There is no aircraft
cat/class limitation on a tow endorsement, so he was
good to go in anything he was rated for.

Bob C.


At 18:00 12 May 2005, M B wrote:
I wonder what the insurance companies think.
In my experience, I've found their opinion of whether
a particular type of flight is covered to be far more
important
than anything the FAA comes up with.

If I had an accident, by far my biggest concern isn't
whether I'm legal, but whether I am insured.

To give you an idea of the impact of insurance,
a friend is selling a Lancair IVP (pressurized
piston driven 360hp mach .5 single) for
less than what a 20 year old A36 Bonanza
sells for. The difference: the experimental IVP is
almost totally uninsurable...

Look at Cessna 310 price/perfomance vs. insurability
and you come to the same conclusion.

At 17:00 12 May 2005, Andy wrote:
Todd, I think we are all in agreement that a motor
glider is a powered
aircraft. The area that needs to be interpreted is
whether a pilot
with a glider rating (there is no FAA motor glider
rating) has a rating
for a powered aircraft. If that pilot does, then do
all glider pilots
have a rating for powered aircraft? If not, then is
the authorization
by grandfathering or endorsement to be considered a
rating. (I am
qualified to fly tail wheel airplanes but I don't have
a tail wheel
rating because there isn't one.) I hope Greg will post
the answer is he
ever gets one.

To answer 5Z - I don't think there is any doubt that
an airship is a
powered aircraft so yes, a pilot with glider and an
airship ratings
would meet the letter of 61.69.

Andy


Mark J. Boyd







Mark J. Boyd

BT - What did you find that made you change your position?

The Feds seem fairly clear about what is meant by a rating - ref:

Title 14--Aeronautics and Space
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Part 1: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Rating means a statement that, as a part of a certificate, sets forth
special conditions, privileges, or limitations.


Andy

Yes I disagree. The holder of a private - glider rating does not hold
a rating for a powered aircraft since the category "glider" is not a
powered aircraft". It has nothing to do with what you are authorized
to fly. Tailwheel, complex, high performance all require specific
authorization but they are not ratings. Similarly an auhorization to
fly a motor glider is not a rating.

Andy

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
snip
I think you are confusing the instructor signoff needed to
self-launch with the rating required to act as PIC of a
motorglider (aka "powered aircraft") You can fly a
motorglider as PIC without the self-launch signoff, as long
as you do not self-launch. You can legally start the engine
in the air, cruise and land with the engine running, as long
as you do not self-launch.


Hello Todd,
from your prior post in this thread

"Thus, IMHO, it's pretty inescapable that the holder of a
private glider certificate "holds at least a private pilot
certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft." Do
you disagree?"

Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate can be PIC
of an ASEL Cessna as long as it is not self-launched?
and more likely
Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate with an
instructor signoff needed to self-launch can be legal PIC of an ASEL Cessna?

Is this intended as a practical interpretation or an academic discussion?

You have earned your credibility here and I doubt that you would jeopardize
this lightly.

For anyone planning on doing this use CAUTION as the FAA does not pay for
lawyers themselves and this interpretation (if correct) may be costly to
prove, AND the insurer may not share the FAA definitions, which may mean you
will be flying without FAA required insurance. Remember that the FAA (and
the lawyers) always win in the end.

Cu to all

private wrote:
Hello Todd,
from your prior post in this thread

"Thus, IMHO, it's pretty inescapable that the holder of a
private glider certificate "holds at least a private pilot
certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft." Do
you disagree?"

Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate can be PIC
of an ASEL Cessna as long as it is not self-launched?
and more likely
Are you stating that the holder of a private glider certificate with an
instructor signoff needed to self-launch can be legal PIC of an ASEL Cessna?

What he is saying seems pretty clear to me. Any private glider pilot
can legally fly (and launch, given the appropriate endorsement), based
on their certificate, FAA-designated "powered aircraft" (i.e.,
motorgliders). So, simple logic suggests that the holder of a private
glider certificate possesses a "category rating for powered aircraft",
as he/she is clearly permitted to fly a specific category of "powered
aircraft". The fact that it does not permit flying any "powered
aircraft" (like a Cessna 172) without an endorsement, is completely
irrelevant.

The holder of a private certificate with ASEL rating only, nonetheless
requires solo endorsements to fly motorgliders, airships, or
helicopters, despite possessing a "private certificate with a category
rating for powered aircraft".

If there is any distinction between the two cases above, it will only be
because the FAA doesn't necessarily apply "logic" to its interpretation
of its own regulations...

Marc

So despite the various arguments I think it's going to come down to
whether the FAA considers a glider to be a powered aircraft. (Note I
said glider, not motor glider, since the issued rating is glider not
motor glider). The FAA defines a glider, and that definition allows the
use of power, but not as the primary means of flight. I could not find
an FAA definition of "powered aircraft" although there are definitions
of several subordinates, including powered parachutes.

Anyway perhaps Greg K now has a feel for the sort of
argument/discussion he is likely to get into when he seeks an official
interpretation.

As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow hook installation
on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider with a tow hook
(on the aft end)?


Andy

Sorry that was intended to follow Todd's post (16).

So despite the various arguments I think it's going to come down to
whether the FAA considers a glider to be a powered aircraft. (Note I
said glider, not motor glider, since the issued rating is glider not
motor glider). The FAA defines a glider, and that definition allows the

use of power, but not as the primary means of flight. I could not find

an FAA definition of "powered aircraft" although there are definitions
of several subordinates, including powered parachutes.


Anyway perhaps Greg K now has a feel for the sort of
argument/discussion he is likely to get into when he seeks an official
interpretation.


As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow hook installation

on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider with a tow hook
(on the aft end)?


Andy

My $1.05 opinion...

The FAA won't even look at this as
a request, because it is too low down
the priority list.

If an accident occurs, they will look,
and will find that if the pilot was rated
for gliders and had the self-launch endorsement and
met all the
other tow endorsement and currency requirements, that
they won't do any
enforcement action. If required by the
insurer, someone at FAA will write it out,
sign it, and stick a stamp on it.

Whether this is good enough for an insurer...that is
an entirely
different matter. With insurers, the ask
permission vs. beg forgiveness STRONGLY favors the
ask permission idea, in my experience.

At 21:01 16 May 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
'Andy' wrote:

So despite the various arguments I think it's going
to come down to
whether the FAA considers a glider to be a powered
aircraft.

I don't think I'd phrase it quite like that. I think
it
comes down to whether the FAA thinks the holder of
a glider
rating is someone who 'holds at least a private pilot
certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft'

(Note I
said glider, not motor glider, since the issued rating
is glider not
motor glider).

It is true that the issued rating is 'glider,' but
it's also
true that the FAA considers the term 'glider' to include
powered aircraft (also called 'powered gliders') and
non-powered aircraft.

AC No: 21.17-2A -'Powered gliders are considered to
be
powered aircraft for the purpose of complying with
91.205.'

The FAA defines a glider, and that definition allows
the
use of power, but not as the primary means of flight.
I could not find
an FAA definition of 'powered aircraft' although there
are definitions
of several subordinates, including powered parachutes.

I don't believe there is an FAA definition of 'powered
aircraft.' There are AC references that tell us powered
gliders are powered aircraft and have to comply with
all
FARs using the term 'powered aircraft.' There are
also AC
references stating that a motorglider or a powered
glider is
a 'glider.'

Anyway perhaps Greg K now has a feel for the sort of
argument/discussion he is likely to get into when he
seeks an official
interpretation.

Yep. I definitely agree with this.

As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow
hook installation
on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider
with a tow hook
(on the aft end)?

Two more great questions. If Greg K does ask the FAA,
I'd
love to know the answer.


Mark J. Boyd