Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?

On Aug 15, 8:21*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), sisu1a

wrote:
Modern winching is pretty much a science and has come a long way since
the 60s so it does not do the soaring community (US at least...) a
favor to combine it all into single raw statistics cause it paints a
negative biased picture based on irrelevant data. *

Hmmm... I beg to differ.
Modern winching has very much in common with winching in the 60s.
The only difference is that the winches grew stronger in accordance to
the rising weight and speed of the gliders, but otherwise -at least in
Germany- very little has changed. Apart from the stronger engines the
rest of the equipment as well as the procedures are still the same as
fifty years ago.

It is not necessary (Bill - I know you are going to cry out now *to
have the latest state-of-the-art gizmos (telemetry, plastic cables,
advanced speed control) to perform a perfectly safe and satisfactory
winch launch.

Cheers
Andreas

I think that one of the most important safety changes we have made in
the UK is the addition of 'Eventualities' to the pre-flight check
list. That is to remind pilots to plan for the possibility of a launch
failure and also applies to aerotows. No fancy computer controlled
winches or other gizmos required.

Derek C

On Aug 15, 8:55*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:37 pm, bildan wrote:

Every E&R Experimental operations limitations letter I've seen
requires operation in compliance with the AFM.

I can find no such requirement in mine. *Does anyone else operating
experimental (racing/exhibition) have this requirement in their
operating limitations? *If so, would you please email me a copy.

FAR Part 91.9(a) requires operation in compliance with an AFM if one is part of the
original airworthiness certification. *(i.e JAR-22)

My operating limitations do not require compliance with all of part
91. *They reference very specific sections. *In reference to 91.9 they
state in para 21 - This aircraft shall contain the placards.,
markings, etc. required by 91.9.

91.9 (a) states

a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight
Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry.

It is my interpretation that *"or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry" means that the
details of the operating limitations specified by FAA (the
certificating authority in the country of registry) *take precedence.
Those operating limitations make specific reference to the requirement
for placards and markings but make no reference to the AFM.

Why would the operating limitations pick out specific sections of part
91, and specific data from the AFM, for inclusion unless only those
included references/restrictions were applicable? *It would be far
simpler to state that the aircraft is required to operate in
accordance with Part 91.

I'm very sure (based on FAA interpretations) if an E&R airworthiness
certificate is issued for a glider which had a standard airworthiness
certificate with AFM in it's country of origin, the mere issuance of a
US E&R airworthiness certificate does not excuse the owner of the
glider from compliance with the AFM.

Can you please give me references to, or email copies of, any
interpretation that requires compliance with the AFM when the
operating limitations do not. *Do those interpretations also relate to
compliance with an approved maintenance manual?

thanks

Andy

Andy, all you have to do is call your FSDO and ask for an opinion. If
you ask, "Do I have to comply with my glider's AFM if I have an E&R
airworthiness certificate?", you already know what the answer will be.

On Aug 15, 7:58*pm, bildan wrote:

Andy, all you have to do is call your FSDO and ask for an opinion. *If
you ask, "Do I have to comply with my glider's AFM if I have an E&R
airworthiness certificate?", you already know what the answer will be.


The person that issued my operating limitations has retired so I
cannot ask him for any interpretation. I will operate under the
limitations as issued, which are unambiguous in this regard, until
such time as the new FSDO staff decide to revoke them.

Thank you for your assistance in providing the applicable regulations
and precedent that support your position and for being so willing to
have a reasoned discussion of the issue.