"Michael McNulty" wrote in message
news:Wkayc.11473$fZ1.2212@fed1read03...
You're inventing the stuff inside your parens. The Sparrowhawk meets the
explicit legal definition of "GLIDER" given in the FARs.



Hi Mike.
Please read this to cover a part 103 Sparrowhawk, not a part 23/91
Sparrowhawk, which is a normal "sailplane" as we recognise them.

I put the stuff in parens because I wrote it. But that doesn't mean that
it is incorrect. Far part 1 defines a glider as something that flys that is
unpowered. It makes no references to certified or non-certified. So yes,
the
Sparrowhawk is a glider in broad terms. NOW about it being covered as
a towable object under far 91.309. I contend that it isn't. That's because
all of Part 91 is written around certified aircraft. The reference to
glider found in 91.309
is constrained by the definitions in part 91 that limit its scope to
certified aircraft.
See the limitations in 91.203 that say all aircraft operated must have a
certificate of
airworthiness. Registration is also required.
Now since the Sparrowhawk under part 103 is specifically excluded from part
91
in 91.1 you cannot apply 91.309 to it. SSSOOO 91.311 becomes the FAR in
play
if you wish to tow it. This specifically states that a WAIVER IS REQUIRED.

I hope this removes any lack of clarity.

Scott.