Motorgliders (long)

There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA / SRA
pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated 7/11
03 which follows

Members of the rules committee,
A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their engines available for
in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition. I thought it was a
mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No motorglider won the
nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and buy a motorglider. This is
changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in open class in the last few
years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships on
day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants in
open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made it to
the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough altitude to
attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable terrain.
They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they both
started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a similar
final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I ended
up a mile short with a broken ship.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points. Any
in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still have
the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with non-motorized
ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at the
point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option of using their engines
if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available would
also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if their
engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the option of
selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the last
achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't be
fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient altitude.
If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at the
last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe final
glide.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring at
the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All launches
will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted because
selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a good
thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored contestant must
release shortly after reaching release altitude. The creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight", where a
low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up his
engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to the
non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his sailplane
back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I request
that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in the
future.

Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules changes. I request
these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
JJ Sinclair
PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing motorgliders, we need
them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to bolster our dwindling open
class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh, but after your careful
consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion it is the only way to
level the playing field again.

JJ Sinclair

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA /
SRA
pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated
7/11
03 which follows
sniip
attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable
terrain.
They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they
both
started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a
similar
final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I
ended
up a mile short with a broken ship.

snip

Would you have still "ended up a mile short with a broken ship" if you had
been flying with a 500 ft minimum finish altitute to get speed points?

Mike McNulty

Thanks for another excellent post JJ. The clear advantages
of a motor glider you pointed out must be the reason
why sales are quickly shifting to powered ships. An
alternative method of handicapping them could be to
restricting the air intake like racecars do or maybe
a cork in the exhaust would stop this madness. Don’t
these people know that risk taking is just part of
the sport.
Interestingly this is the same dilemma that faced early
push lawn mower operators when some finally put a motor
on one and we know how that turned out.




At 09:54 18 September 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
There are several questions concerning motorgliders
on this years SSA / SRA
pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred
by my letter dated 7/11
03 which follows

Members of the rules committee,
A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their
engines available for
in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition.
I thought it was a
mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No
motorglider won the
nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and
buy a motorglider. This is
changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in
open class in the last few
years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders
and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At
region 8 championships on
day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours.
The 5 contestants in
open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed
ground. We all made it to
the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None
of us had enough altitude to
attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn
point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly
unlandable terrain.
They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting
the bump, they both
started their engines a few miles from home and got
distance points to the
location where they started their engines. A few years
back, I tried a similar
final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized
Nimbus 3. I ended
up a mile short with a broken ship.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend
we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider
to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to
get distance points. Any
in-flight use would result in zero points for the day.
They would still have
the option of using a constructive landout, as is the
case with non-motorized
ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a
landing, but not at the
point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders
exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option
of using their engines
if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine
to be available would
also negate the argument that motorglider insurance
may be invalidated if their
engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider
would have the option of
selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider
was scored at the last
achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning
to this rule wouldn't be
fair because they could still make a final glide without
sufficient altitude.
If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they
still get scored at the
last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not
to try the unsafe final
glide.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation
is occuring at
the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver
of the 'All launches
will be by aerotow' rule. I would ask that no more
waivers be granted because
selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around
until they find a good
thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored
contestant must
release shortly after reaching release altitude. The
creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an
'In-flight relight', where a
low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport
and then starts up his
engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is
also clearly unfair to the
non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with
water, shove his sailplane
back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane
to come out. I request
that more specific language be use to make these practices
unavailable in the
future.

Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules
changes. I request
these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
JJ Sinclair
PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing
motorgliders, we need
them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to
bolster our dwindling open
class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh,
but after your careful
consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion
it is the only way to
level the playing field again.

JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...

Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships on
day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants in
open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made it to
the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough altitude to
attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable terrain.

I am one of those pilots. There are NUMEROUS safe landing fields
between Coulee City and Ephrata, and I was never out of reach of one
of these fields, nor was the other pilot. I just don't fly that way,
and I'm very disappointed JJ thinks I do. I've talked to him about
this, but obviously haven't changed his mind.

They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they both
started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines.

I actually turned back to be over a good field at decent altitude to
restart my engine. Had I been flying without an engine, I would've
continued because...

-at 6.7 pounds/sq ft (no engine weight) versus 8.2 lbs/sq ft, I would
have climbed in the weak thermal I found there to gain the few hundred
feet I needed

-if I did have to land, it's safer to do it at 6.7 lbs/sq ft vs 8.2

-it's a heck of a lot easier to retrieve a glider with a 320 pound
fuselage instead of a 500 pound fuselage!

A few years back, I tried a similar
final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I ended
up a mile short with a broken ship.

I must point out that a motor is not a safety advantage. Motor glider
pilots also land out and break their gliders when they make bad
choices, often by picking a poor field, waiting until too low to
attempt a restart, then botching the landing when the motor doesn't
start. And the landing doesn't go any better with an 8 lb/ft2 wing
loading, than it would with the 6 lb/ft2 wing loading of a Nimbus 3.

The competitor in an unpowered glider has an advantage because he can
safely thermal lower than the motor glider pilot, because he doesn't
need an extra few hundred feet to safely attempt a restart, and he
lands slower.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage.

I contend a serious competitor will fly a glider with a wide range of
wing loadings, and that is very definitely NOT a motorglider.

I recommend we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points. Any
in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still have
the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with non-motorized
ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at the
point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes,

Exactly EQUAL? What about the 180 pounds of ballast (engine, fuel,
batteries, etc) I can't drop? That's worth 1.5 pounds/sq ft of wing
loading. Let me rewrite Moffat's comment: "Contests are won on the
weak days, not by getting lucky over unlandable terrain".

Because of the weight difference and other factors, I don't see any
way to avoid one type of glider from having some advantage over the
other type. I suggest an approach that balances the advantages so that
pilots of both types will want to fly in a contest. The "zero points
for day" for an inflight restart will discourage motorglider pilots
from entering contests for two reasons:

-Self-launchers: the high weight makes field landings (higher touch
down speed) and retrieves very unattractive, so they would have to
stay within reach of an airport at all times; coupled with the high
minimum wing loading, some of us will decide doing well is simply not
possible.

-Sustainers: landing means they can't self-retrieve, so some will
decide the hassle of a ground retrieve or the expense of an aerotow
aren't worth it.

but still allow them the option of using their engines
if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available would
also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if their
engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the option of
selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Except the sustainers, of course.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the last
achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't be
fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient altitude.
If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at the
last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe final
glide.

How about the very real possibility that the motor won't start, and
the altitude lost while the motor is extended? It's enough to keep me
from flying out of reach of a safe landing place! Once you've had an
engine refuse to start, it gives you a new perspective.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring at
the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All launches
will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted because
selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a good
thermal, before shutting down their engines. The non-motored contestant must
release shortly after reaching release altitude.

This is an advantage, and I've requested that our next contest at
Ephrata disallow this. I think there should a rule that all gliders
get "dropped" in about the same place; frankly, this isn't happening
even with the towed gliders. This can be enforced by looking at the
flight traces.

The creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight", where a
low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up his
engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to the
non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his sailplane
back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I request
that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in the
future.

I totally agree, but I don't think it was a "creative rules
interpretation" but just ignorance that allowed it to happen at
Ephrata. I support requiring the motorglider to land and wait for the
already landed gliders to launch before he does.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

That was good Eric, I almost started feeling sorry for you motorgliders, all
the burdens you have to bear. The rest of us have only one burden to bear, we
don't know where that magic thermal can be found, you do.


Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships
on
day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants in
open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made it
to
the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough
altitude to
attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable terrain.

I am one of those pilots. There are NUMEROUS safe landing fields
between Coulee City and Ephrata, and I was never out of reach of one
of these fields, nor was the other pilot. I just don't fly that way,
and I'm very disappointed JJ thinks I do. I've talked to him about
this, but obviously haven't changed his mind.

They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they
both
started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines.

I actually turned back to be over a good field at decent altitude to
restart my engine. Had I been flying without an engine, I would've
continued because...

-at 6.7 pounds/sq ft (no engine weight) versus 8.2 lbs/sq ft, I would
have climbed in the weak thermal I found there to gain the few hundred
feet I needed

-if I did have to land, it's safer to do it at 6.7 lbs/sq ft vs 8.2

-it's a heck of a lot easier to retrieve a glider with a 320 pound
fuselage instead of a 500 pound fuselage!

A few years back, I tried a similar
final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I
ended
up a mile short with a broken ship.

I must point out that a motor is not a safety advantage. Motor glider
pilots also land out and break their gliders when they make bad
choices, often by picking a poor field, waiting until too low to
attempt a restart, then botching the landing when the motor doesn't
start. And the landing doesn't go any better with an 8 lb/ft2 wing
loading, than it would with the 6 lb/ft2 wing loading of a Nimbus 3.

The competitor in an unpowered glider has an advantage because he can
safely thermal lower than the motor glider pilot, because he doesn't
need an extra few hundred feet to safely attempt a restart, and he
lands slower.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage.

I contend a serious competitor will fly a glider with a wide range of
wing loadings, and that is very definitely NOT a motorglider.

I recommend we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points. Any
in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still
have
the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with
non-motorized
ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at the
point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes,

Exactly EQUAL? What about the 180 pounds of ballast (engine, fuel,
batteries, etc) I can't drop? That's worth 1.5 pounds/sq ft of wing
loading. Let me rewrite Moffat's comment: "Contests are won on the
weak days, not by getting lucky over unlandable terrain".

Because of the weight difference and other factors, I don't see any
way to avoid one type of glider from having some advantage over the
other type. I suggest an approach that balances the advantages so that
pilots of both types will want to fly in a contest. The "zero points
for day" for an inflight restart will discourage motorglider pilots
from entering contests for two reasons:

-Self-launchers: the high weight makes field landings (higher touch
down speed) and retrieves very unattractive, so they would have to
stay within reach of an airport at all times; coupled with the high
minimum wing loading, some of us will decide doing well is simply not
possible.

-Sustainers: landing means they can't self-retrieve, so some will
decide the hassle of a ground retrieve or the expense of an aerotow
aren't worth it.

but still allow them the option of using their engines
if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available
would
also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if
their
engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the option
of
selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Except the sustainers, of course.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the
last
achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't
be
fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient
altitude.
If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at
the
last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe
final
glide.

How about the very real possibility that the motor won't start, and
the altitude lost while the motor is extended? It's enough to keep me
from flying out of reach of a safe landing place! Once you've had an
engine refuse to start, it gives you a new perspective.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring
at
the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All launches
will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted
because
selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a
good
thermal, before shutting down their engines. The non-motored contestant
must
release shortly after reaching release altitude.

This is an advantage, and I've requested that our next contest at
Ephrata disallow this. I think there should a rule that all gliders
get "dropped" in about the same place; frankly, this isn't happening
even with the towed gliders. This can be enforced by looking at the
flight traces.

The creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight",
where a
low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up
his
engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to
the
non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his
sailplane
back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I
request
that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in
the
future.

I totally agree, but I don't think it was a "creative rules
interpretation" but just ignorance that allowed it to happen at
Ephrata. I support requiring the motorglider to land and wait for the
already landed gliders to launch before he does.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)








JJ Sinclair

There's another question on the survey that might benifit from some
explanation. Since I proposed it, here it is:
----------------------

8.0 Airfield Landing Bonus for Motorgliders
For a motorglider to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus,
current rules require it to land on an approved airfield before the
use of the engine.

8.1 Should motorgliders that start their engine over an approved
airfield be allowed to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus?
----------------------
Here is my letter to the Rules Committee:

I'd appreciate it if you could put the following proposal into the
rules system for consideration.

Currently, pilots can be awarded a 25 point bonus if they land at an
airport rather than landing out. Even motorgliders are required to
land at an airport before starting the engine to get the bonus, and
this is were the potential for less safe flying can arise. Consider
the situation I encountered at our Region 8 contest this year:

I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City).

So, the bonus rule, as currently implemented, can have actually
discourage the safest behavior when a motorglider is involved. Besides
the situation described above were not landing is obviously the safest
course, it is usually safer even when there are no other gliders
involved, because it avoids the dangers inherent in another landing
and takeoff.

Here's my suggestion for modifying the rule to encourage safer flying
by using the air restart ability of a motorglider:

10.10.4.1 A pilot with an incomplete task who lands at a designated
airfield can receive a score bonus for such a landing. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

(10.10.4.2,3, and 4: no change)

10.10.4.5 [delete] (this deletion allows the pilot to receive the
bonus, even if he lands at the airfield after attempting to start the
motor, should the motor fail to start, or weather or other conditions
make in wise to land at the airfield even if the motor starts)

Please let me know if you or others on the Rules Committee have
concerns about this proposal , and I'll do my best to answer them.

Regards,

Eric Greenwell

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Of course, its safer to land (as a glider) and then launch (as a
motor-glider),
especially if low. Barring congestion problems as in Eric's case below...
Best Regards, Dave

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
There's another question on the survey that might benifit from some
explanation. Since I proposed it, here it is:
----------------------

8.0 Airfield Landing Bonus for Motorgliders
For a motorglider to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus,
current rules require it to land on an approved airfield before the
use of the engine.

8.1 Should motorgliders that start their engine over an approved
airfield be allowed to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus?
----------------------
Here is my letter to the Rules Committee:

I'd appreciate it if you could put the following proposal into the
rules system for consideration.

Currently, pilots can be awarded a 25 point bonus if they land at an
airport rather than landing out. Even motorgliders are required to
land at an airport before starting the engine to get the bonus, and
this is were the potential for less safe flying can arise. Consider
the situation I encountered at our Region 8 contest this year:

I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City).

So, the bonus rule, as currently implemented, can have actually
discourage the safest behavior when a motorglider is involved. Besides
the situation described above were not landing is obviously the safest
course, it is usually safer even when there are no other gliders
involved, because it avoids the dangers inherent in another landing
and takeoff.

Here's my suggestion for modifying the rule to encourage safer flying
by using the air restart ability of a motorglider:

10.10.4.1 A pilot with an incomplete task who lands at a designated
airfield can receive a score bonus for such a landing. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

(10.10.4.2,3, and 4: no change)

10.10.4.5 [delete] (this deletion allows the pilot to receive the
bonus, even if he lands at the airfield after attempting to start the
motor, should the motor fail to start, or weather or other conditions
make in wise to land at the airfield even if the motor starts)

Please let me know if you or others on the Rules Committee have
concerns about this proposal , and I'll do my best to answer them.

Regards,

Eric Greenwell

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Earlier Eric wrote.. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
Best Regards,


JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
Earlier Eric wrote.. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
Best Regards,

It's not a relight, because the task is over for that pilot, and he
can't attempt the task again. The airport bonus is awarded to
encourage safer flying, but did not always have that effect for a
motorglider pilot. The proposed rule attempts to extend that
encouragement to the motorglider pilot. No racing purpose is served by
having the glider land.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
.....................
I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City). .....................

A pilot flying a pure sailplane in the situation you describe would have to
come up with a plan. Maybe even having to land in a field next to the
airport if the situation got really bad. But, because you have an engine,
you seem to be asking for a special privilege. What you suggest might be
safer, but, is it fair to all of the pilots flying pure sailplanes that you
should be exempt from the same exposures as them just because you have an
engine?

Duane