Ok, let's talk about this rationally. The CFR 14 parts are interpreted
every day by so-called experts
and they haven't the slightest clue about the meaning and intent of these
rules.
The aviation rules encompassed by CFR Title 14 were initially written to be
permissive.
That is, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by regulation, then it was
assumed to be allowable.
This attitude has been somewhat modified by our all knowing government but
it is still extant.

Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a
powered aircraft, by definition.
By definition, a powered aircraft is one that has an engine that operates
continuously from take off
to touchdown. Even though your motor glider can do this, it is not required
to. Finding this information
is akin to reading the Federalist Papers to discern what the founding
fathers meant. But, it can be done.

Incidentally, regardless of what your FAR/AIM 2003 book says on the cover,
there are no FARs,
no Federal Air Regulations and no Federal Aviation Regulations. There is
only the
Code of Federal Regulations and for transportation, Title 14. Title 14 has
parts with which you
are familiar, i.e., 91, 61 121, 135 etc. It seems like 98% of the aviation
population is unaware of this.

There are many Motor Gliders flying around with uncertified engines, by
regulation, no powered aircraft can do so.
I'll let Judy look up the appropriate reg. With no powered aircraft may
you, for example, remove the wings, de or re-rig it.
You may do so with your motor glider. With sustainer engines the engine is
not even a required piece of equipment.
How do you reconcile this with powered aircraft requirements?

The rules that specify powered aircraft were written for continuously
operating engines. For example,
in a motor glider you are not required to arrive anywhere with any fuel
reserves or any fuel at all!
How do you reconcile this with regulations for powered aircraft?
In powered aircraft, except in an emergency, you may not turn off an engine
in flight.
When you turn your motor glider off in flight do you then become subject to
a different set of rules?
The answer is no, you do not.

The clincher is that, in states that levy personal property tax on aircraft,
there is often an exception for gliders and a resultant lower
levy. This lower levy applies to motor gliders. Do you think a state would
voluntarily give up a source of revenue?

With due deference to Judy (and truthfully, she and many others are a
marvelous fount of knowledge on this board),
you are all assuming facts not in evidence.

Todd, I am shouting for emphasis. Roger, good questions and reasonable
arguments.

And for Judy, the elements of 14 CFR 91.205 do not apply to motor gliders
since they are not powered aircraft.
If you assume that 91.205 applies to motor gliders then you would also have
to apply 14 CFR 91.213 and you would
violate the CFRs every time you turned off your engine in flight. My motor
glider limits the use of lights and certain other
electrical components to 10% of the running time of the engine. Which CFR
should I violate? Keeping my rotating
beacon on or not adhering to the POH?

Go back to the deliberations and exchanges associated with the 1997 changes
to the FAR's.
(Yes, they were FARs back then) to divine the intent of the current
regulations. You will find that, at no point
was it ever discussed or envisioned that motor gliders were to be powered
aircraft under the statutes.

Let the games begin!

Allan


"Robertmudd1u" wrote in message
...
In article , "ADP"

writes:

A motor glider is NOT a powered Aircraft!!!! It is a glider with a
motor.
You err. Check your airworthiness certificate. It says GLIDER.
No rule applicable to powered aircraft is applicable to a Motor Glider.
Let
me say it one more time, a motor glider is a GLIDER with a Motor and is
NOT
a powered aircraft. Write it 1000 times, a motor glider is a GLIDER!
Allan


Allan,

Judy is the recognized expert on the FAR in this news group. When you go
up
against her about the FARs you need to reference your opinion or you have
no
validity.

Judy always refers to the correct FAR to back up her statements. You
should
too. What is your reference for such a strong statement?

According to my copy of FAR 1.1 General Definitions, both a glider an
airplane
would be considered aircraft because they are both, "...intended to be
used for
flight in the air."

Robert Mudd