Ultralight sailplane aerotow liability

"mat Redsell" wrote in message ...
When I was inquiring about towing an ultralight the FAA said that an "N"
numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
be worth looking into.

-mat

Mat,

I have seen N-registered tow planes towing gliders not being N-registered.
Are they all illegal in terms of FAA regulations?

Please let us know, thanks
Michael

FAA said that an "N"
numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
be worth looking into.

Please look into it - quote the FAR or the FAA letter stating this as a
reference so we can have it on file.

US CFR 91.309 outlines towing of "gliders" which presumably
means "gliders" as defined by the FAA (with airworthiness
certificate that says "glider").

US CFR 91.311 says "No pilot of a civil aircraft may tow anything
with that aircraft (other than under 91.309) except in accordance
with the terms of a certificate of waiver issued by the Administrator."

The banner tow guys have waivers, according to my plane partner who
used to tow banners in Los Angeles. I assume one could apply for a
waiver to tow other things, but I'm guessing success could be spotty.
The FAA FSDOs seem to be getting more and more conservative
(no more field approvals, increasing experimental "limitations" list,
etc.).

In article ,
mat Redsell wrote:
When I was inquiring about towing an ultralight the FAA said that an "N"
numbered aircraft can't pull one without an "N" number.... this might also
be worth looking into.

-mat




--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4064a206$1@darkstar...
In article VQP8c.9144$1I5.308@fed1read01,
BTIZ wrote:
Will this all change with the coming of the "Sport Pilot Certificate" and
the "Sport Aircraft" certification?? I'm sure the Sparrow Hawk will fit
into
that category.

The Vne limit and 10,000 ft altitude Sport restrictions
discourage some glider makers from making
a glider a sport category aircraft...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

I think you'll find the altitude limit is on the pilot, not the aircraft.
This is probably so they don't have to have oxygen systems in the Sport
Pilot curriculum.
The Vne limit is kind of silly, but it's just a placard. What if someone
made a glider with a design dive speed of 350 kts, and then placarded Vne as
100 kts, just as a "safety factor"?
But really, why have a Sport Pilot glider license? You need to pass an FAA
practical in either case. In neither case do you need a medical.
The Light Sport Aircraft could make certification somewhat cheaper for a
manufacturer, but as long as gliders are able to get the Experimental --
Exhibition and Racing registration, I don't think it's a huge deal.
Where LSA had the possibility of being useful to gliders was in having LSA
towplanes. I think a purpose-built towplane could be built within the
constraints of LSA that would be fairly inexpensive to run. But as I
understand it, towing is explicitly forbidden.

Tim Ward

It is interesting that aviation is increasingly being regulated far
more stringently by the insurance companies than by the FAA. The term "Self
Regulation" does not quite apply except in the very general sense that the
regulation comes from within the aviation industry, so I guess we could more
accurately call it "Market-Based regulation", or even "Insurance-Based
regulation".

Hmmm...insurance companies have driven a good deal of choices
in all walks of life. Motorcycle helmet laws, airbags,
mandatory seat belts, etc. were strongly
lobbied by insurance in CA to reduce variability of claims.

Recently, I was told auto-tow would not be allowed
at a public airport which averages 7 operations a day, due to
liability. At least two local airstrip owners within the past
five years have changed their minds and won't allow
aerotow out due to liability.

Recently, a group of three men bought a 1955 Cessna 310,
only to find that they could not be insured until they had 100+
hours in the plane. Finding an instructor with that many hours
was challenging too...

When I bought into our PW-5 syndicate, the insurer would
only insure pilots with a glider PPL. No solo students allowed...

I personally like the insurance way of evaluating things, but
I abhor their involvement lobbying in politics. Fortunately,
although I've seen insurers muck with auto laws (the
helmet law), I've seen no action on their part to
try to change glider regulations...

One thing the insurance companies have NOT done to glider
pilots for insurance is require a medical exam. They'd have
the power to ask for this despite the regs. I think the
actuaries have found that glider accidents caused by
medical conditions (aside from drugs/alchohol) are quite rare...
This was a bit of a help to the folks who were trying to
make sport pilot happen for power (since there was already some
positive glider data). This also seems to indicate to me that
the insurance company (non-political) policies are quite good...

As far as sport pilot goes, I'm hoping that after the
first round of approval, a second set of endorsement possibilities
will appear. I'm hoping a sport pilot may fly at altitudes higher than
10,000 if they get oxygen system training and aeromedical
training from a CFI, for example. Or perhaps night flight
endorsement after 3 hours of dual at night. Reduced visibility
endorsement (equivalent to the VFR PPL vis and cloud clearance minimums)
by completing 3 hours of simulated or actual IMC. Etc...
The change to make ground-launch an endorsement vs. a flight test
shows precedent. I hope this becomes true for Sport Pilot
also. Otherwise, with the 10,000 ft altitude restriction,
Sparrowhawk is unlikely to want to make a Sport version (at
least that was one downside that Greg Cole communicated to me).

This seems really reasonable and efficient to
make these limitations removeable by endorsement, because it
then would nicely also dovetail into a PPL...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

snip
shows precedent. I hope this becomes true for Sport Pilot
also. Otherwise, with the 10,000 ft altitude restriction,
Sparrowhawk is unlikely to want to make a Sport version (at
least that was one downside that Greg Cole communicated to me).

snip

makes sense to me, but with no N number.. there are those that are taking on
risk to tow the sparrowhawk aloft.

BT

Well, with a sport version, an N number is given.
And yep, it would be a "sport glider."

The benefit is that maint. and inspection requirments
can be attained by 80 hours + 16 hours of sport maint. trng.

Others have mentioned the sport glider rating is
silly. Agreed, for the straight rating. But the transition rating
is something quite different (and useful).

In article s149c.12225$1I5.9505@fed1read01,
BTIZ wrote:
snip
shows precedent. I hope this becomes true for Sport Pilot
also. Otherwise, with the 10,000 ft altitude restriction,
Sparrowhawk is unlikely to want to make a Sport version (at
least that was one downside that Greg Cole communicated to me).

snip

makes sense to me, but with no N number.. there are those that are taking on
risk to tow the sparrowhawk aloft.

BT




--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA