Mark James Boyd wrote:
I think it's a glider.

Really? If that's a glider, then the term "glider" is a worthless one,
isn't it? It becomes the name of catch-all category, not a description
of the aircraft.

The pilot thinks it's a glider.

Why does the pilot think it's a glider? Has he never seen even a 2-33?

The AC
defines it as a glider. The DAR thinks it's a glider.

He may accept is as fitting in the glider category, but I doubt that he
thinks it's a glider.

The FAA
thinks it's a glider.

And I'm sure they know it's not a glider, but some of them are willing
to go along with registering it that way.

The instructor who signed him off
for self-launch thinks it's a glider.

I'd like to hear the instructor say that with a straight face.


And there are now at least several dozen ultralight pilots who
think it is a glider.

I suspect they are also willing to go along with the charade. Bonus
time! It doesn't have to make sense if you get to do what you want.

Eric, if you're so sure it isn't a glider,
you better get in and STOP this craziness, before it ruins gliding!

The glider category has a number of regulatory perks we treasure, and I
don't want these to disappear by filling the category with such
enormously different aircraft. I'm not sure that they will disappear,
especially if the numbers of ultralights remains low. It might even be
an asset, if it leads those pilots to discover soaring and the aircraft
that do it (I call them gliders and sailplanes, almost interchangeably),
but it's an experiment that likely can't be undone if it goes badly.

Call and write the people who make the rules and tell them how
wrong it is to use span and weight calculations to define a glider.
And how wrong it is to use minimum sink as a parameter, and
how penetration is what really matters.

Isn't this the problem? None of these criteria apply to experimentally
licensed aircraft. Surely, the Quicksilver is not _certified_ as glider?


Of course, you might want to be careful. If you're too
convincing, they'll cancel making ultralights gliders, but
will start certifying jet airliners all as gliders.

Jet airliners don't meet the certification requirements for gliders,
regardless of how convincing I am.

Then
you'll need a type rating and part 121 check to fly
your self-launcher!!!!

In some European countries (maybe all), a self-launcher is NOT treated
like a glider, but instead requires a license much like a power plane. I
hope that never happens here, but I get very uneasy when I see such
non-glider aircraft like the Quicksilver being considered
"motorgliders". If problems occur because of "motorgliders" of any sort
(ultralight or powered sailplanes), it's easy to imagine that an FAA
solution might be separating them from the glider category and treating
them more like airplanes. That would be loss for everyone and sport. I
think we've been lucky so far that powered sailplanes and touring
motorgliders are still in the glider category.


:P

Hmmm...thinking about John's idea, yeah I'd love to watch
a half dozen of these gliders jamming around a short triangle course
at Avenal. And a toilet paper cutting contest too...

But that's ok, Eric. If you don't want them, we'll take them.
After all, they have to spend their money SOMEWHERE, right?

I like John's idea, but I don't think he had Quicksilvers in mind. They
would not be able to soar around the course. To me, this not analogous
to having snow boarders show up at the ski hill: it's more like ATVs
showing up at the ski hill.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA