In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:

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

Scrivner Quicksilver MX, tail number N69QT, experimental glider.
Chuck Scrivner is a glider pilot, initially trained in aerotowed gliders.
He now has a self-launch endorsement and exercises this privilege
whenever he launches his Quicksilver glider.

It meets the span to weight criteria, so he certified it as a glider.

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

He has. He has also looked at his airworthiness certificate.
And he has thermalled and ridge soared this Quicksilver glider.

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.

Again, I didn't say this SHOULD happen, just that it IS happening,
and it is worth looking into. I'd like to see the ASA consciously
decide to help accelerate, decelerate, or ignore this certification
of Quicksilver aircraft as gliders vs. airplanes.

I for one see these as hang gliders that have simply added an
engine to self-launch, much like your glider. I personally would
like to see them welcomed to soaring. But without organizational
encouragement from ASA and perhaps SSA, Quicksilver gliders will
come into soaring in ones and twos, not in any significant numbers.

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,

I hope it doesn't either. But I'm not willing to actively exclude a
whole group of eager pilots to avoid this "maybe."

******I have changed a few words from Eric's post to make a point****

but I get very uneasy when I see such
non-glider aircraft like the ASH-26E being considered
"gliders".

******Changes end*******

I wonder how the "pure glider" folks felt when the early "self-launch"
gliders started appearing. I wonder if they had some of the same
comments. In fact, isn't this kind of discrimination something we still
face today, just a little more under the surface? Tell me, Eric,
how does it feel when someone snickers at your "non-glider" ?

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.

I wonder if the pure glider pilots wondered the same thing about
the first motorgliders too?

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.

If Quicksilver gliders are ATVs on the ski hill, then you
are looking a little naked there on your ASH snowmobile. :O brrrrrrrr

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I dunno where this is going to end up, but there is an opportunity
here, that I am sure. Whether it is an opportunity the gliding community
wants to take, hmmmmmm...., that's something clubs and airports
across the country are going to have to decide a little at a time.

To quote one local club President:
"There will be no problem about the insured UL's landing at
the field. The rule is as long as they are coming to participate
in club activities they are welcome (that goes for any non-club aircraft)."
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd