Update on the SparrowHawk and more....

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Michael Stringfellow wrote:

"snip....Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?

My home airport of Watsonville has in the airport rules
that ultralight takeoffs and landings are at the discretion
of the airport manager (need his approval). N numbered
aircraft do not.

I don't know the rules at towered airports, but they may be similar.
On the other hand, except for noise reasons, I haven't heard
of any N numbered aircraft being denied use of a federally
funded airport...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

An example: why hasn't the
SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
saved many lives

The market, which buys gliders which the SSA does not, has shown a distinct
lack of interest in recovery chutes. I believe Schempp-Hirth offers a chute as
an option for some of its gliders. I wonder how many they have sold, or even if
interest warranted certifcation?

Because most gliders are made and certified in Europe any installation would
have to meet European Certification Standards. Several years ago Hanko
Streifeneder fitted a Discus with such a recovery parachute. He actually did
several in flight deployments. The certifying authorities decided that the
system had to be tested up to VNE. At some point Herr Streifeneder wisely
decided to stop flight testing. I think it was when the glider almost fell back
into the deploying parachute.

Having a recovery parachute on board is no guarantee that you are safe.

Has anyone tested the Sparrowhawk with a parachute deployment? What testing has
been done?

If you want a touring type motorglider with a rescue parachute check out the
Sinus or Virus from Pipistrel. There have been two in flight deployments of the
rescue parachute, with no serious injury to the occupants. That is real world
testing.

Robert Mudd

Robertmudd1u wrote:

The market, which buys gliders which the SSA does not, has shown a distinct
lack of interest in recovery chutes. I believe Schempp-Hirth offers a chute as
an option for some of its gliders. I wonder how many they have sold, or even if
interest warranted certifcation?

As far as I know, all the Sparrowhawks sold thus far
have BRS installed, and these need repack only every 6 years.
If anyone has contradicting info, please let me know...
The repack cycle was info I got from Windward, the BRS
in every Sparrowhawk I seem to recall reading from the
Windward or BRS site...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
and ultralights ...


How does it straddle this border if it is an ultralight?
There are so-called 'fat ultralights' that are overweight,
are carrying more fuel than permitted, have a higher
stall speed than permitted, and have a faster 'cruise
speed' than permitted. Any of these makes this unit
technically an aircraft and itis thus illegal. Some
of these same aiarcraft are registered and have an
N-number.

I am aware of a case in which a kit-builder tried to
fly the same aircraft both as registered aircraft and
unregistered ultralight by simply removing the N-number
on occasion. I'm guessing this was found to be fradulent
when the machine was involved in a fatality.

Now, if that machine was forbidden to cross the border,
how can the Sparrowhawk straddle it. It's citizenship
must be declared for one camp or the other on a unit
by unit basis. This is not new; look at the Kolb ultralight
kits. They are flown both ways, as are other powered
ultralights.

(David Bingham) wrote in message . com...
There has been a lot of interest recently on the
sailplane bulletin boards on the SparrowHawk due
to its uniqueness of having a real sailplane performance
and yet it does not have to be registered and can be
considered to be an ultralight under FAR part 103.
I have researched the implications of flying it as an
ultralight and here is what I have found. I know of no
towing operation who would not tow me in the
SparrowHawk. Its tows just like a regular glider at
65 knots and poses no problems behind a Pawnee
or other tow plane. How about liability insurance? I
read that some tow operations require glider liability
insurance but cannot confirm this. It is my perception
that tow operations tow pilots and their gliders in that
order. If a pilot is a menace to himself and others he
doesn't get towed regardless of what glider he wants
to be towed in. Nevertheless, if I
am a member of USHGA I am covered by their
policy to $1,000,000.00 if the NON POWERED
glider conforms to FAR part 103. I have spoken
to several officers and former officers of USHGA
and they agree with this interpretation. What a
deal! Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
Now some caveats. Could anyone go and buy
a SparrowHawk and get a tow? No! Any respectable
tow operation will probably require a glider license,
or at least a solo signoff from a CFIG (glider instructor).
For those of you who are interested go to www.ushga.org
and then go to the Member Handbook. Click on
Pilot Liability Insurance. There you will find the USHGA
liability policy. Read it. There are several interesting
bits of info to be gleaned.
The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
and ultralights and this suggests to me that it is about
time the SSA and USHGA get serious (I know there have
been discussions but they have come to nought) and try
and figure out how to deal with this new generation of
gliders. USHGA has done and is doing an excellent job
of self regulating ultralight gliders, pilot training, safety
etc. The SSA is hot on comps, badges, meets, etc.,
but in my opinion, almost irrelevant concerning safety
and most other issues. An example: why hasn't the
SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
saved many lives (option on the SparrowHawk). There
are other examples. I throw this out for discussion having
been a member of both organizations for many years that
SSA has to review the reasons for its being which I
find so lacking.
Dave

How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.

Tim
SES

Per my earlier posting, the FARs for towing refer to gliders, which are a
class of "aircraft". The FAA regards the Sparrowhawk as an "ultralight
vehicle" and not an aircraft. hence the Sparrowhawk cannot comply with the
FAR, whatever the weight and link requirements.

(Again, not a value judgement, just trying to interpret the rules).

Mike


"Timbro" wrote in message
om...
(David Bingham) wrote in message
. com...
There has been a lot of interest recently on the
sailplane bulletin boards on the SparrowHawk due
to its uniqueness of having a real sailplane performance
and yet it does not have to be registered and can be
considered to be an ultralight under FAR part 103.
I have researched the implications of flying it as an
ultralight and here is what I have found. I know of no
towing operation who would not tow me in the
SparrowHawk. Its tows just like a regular glider at
65 knots and poses no problems behind a Pawnee
or other tow plane. How about liability insurance? I
read that some tow operations require glider liability
insurance but cannot confirm this. It is my perception
that tow operations tow pilots and their gliders in that
order. If a pilot is a menace to himself and others he
doesn't get towed regardless of what glider he wants
to be towed in. Nevertheless, if I
am a member of USHGA I am covered by their
policy to $1,000,000.00 if the NON POWERED
glider conforms to FAR part 103. I have spoken
to several officers and former officers of USHGA
and they agree with this interpretation. What a
deal! Why would I ever register the SparrowHawk?
Now some caveats. Could anyone go and buy
a SparrowHawk and get a tow? No! Any respectable
tow operation will probably require a glider license,
or at least a solo signoff from a CFIG (glider instructor).
For those of you who are interested go to www.ushga.org
and then go to the Member Handbook. Click on
Pilot Liability Insurance. There you will find the USHGA
liability policy. Read it. There are several interesting
bits of info to be gleaned.
The SparrowHawk straddles the border between aircraft
and ultralights and this suggests to me that it is about
time the SSA and USHGA get serious (I know there have
been discussions but they have come to nought) and try
and figure out how to deal with this new generation of
gliders. USHGA has done and is doing an excellent job
of self regulating ultralight gliders, pilot training, safety
etc. The SSA is hot on comps, badges, meets, etc.,
but in my opinion, almost irrelevant concerning safety
and most other issues. An example: why hasn't the
SSA pushed for ballistic parachutes which would have
saved many lives (option on the SparrowHawk). There
are other examples. I throw this out for discussion having
been a member of both organizations for many years that
SSA has to review the reasons for its being which I
find so lacking.
Dave

How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.

Tim
SES

"Michael Stringfellow" wrote in message
news:uFHxc.5686$K45.1139@fed1read02...
Per my earlier posting, the FARs for towing refer to gliders, which are a
class of "aircraft". The FAA regards the Sparrowhawk as an "ultralight
vehicle" and not an aircraft. hence the Sparrowhawk cannot comply with the
FAR, whatever the weight and link requirements.

(Again, not a value judgement, just trying to interpret the rules).

Then read them (said with a smile). FAR Part One defines "aircraft" as "a
device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." That would
seem to include the SparrowHawk. True, part 103 defines something called an
"ultralight vehicle" but the towplane is in no way governed by part 103. Let us
not invent regulations that do not exist, we have enough already.

The possibility of operating the SparrowHawk as an ultralight vehicle seems
to be a cornerstone of its marketing strategy but I think that is not seen as an
advantage to already licensed sailplane pilots. Further, if a pilot gets the
training necessary to fly the thing safely, getting licensed is not an issue. I
do, however, like the concept of its easy rigging and ground handling.

This thread reminds me of that old movie "Groundhog Day". It just keep
happening; again and again and...

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...


Then read them (said with a smile). FAR Part One defines "aircraft"
as "a
device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." That
would
seem to include the SparrowHawk. True, part 103 defines something called
an
"ultralight vehicle" but the towplane is in no way governed by part 103.
Let us
not invent regulations that do not exist, we have enough already.

Vaughn




Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
classes of Aircraft are certified.
Part 103 covers things that fly , uncertified. Don't try to misconstrue
writing of the laws that predate the existance
of Part 103. 103 was added to eliminate the confusion in terms and to get
the FEDS out of regulating ultralights.
I agree that we shouldn't create laws that don't exist. But the facts are
that under 91.309, you can't
tow a Sparrowhawk without a waiver because it is not a glider conforming
with part 91 unless it carries an N reg number.
This is no different than trying to tow a Swift, Tempest, Superfloater or
similar bird.

Scott.

"plasticguy" wrote in message
...

OK Scott, strictly in the interest of getting this thing right, I honestly
don't want to get anybody's dander up.

Vaughn. FAR Part 1 defines Aircraft. Further study will show that all
classes of Aircraft are certified.

Further study where? Can you give us a reference?

Part 103 covers things that fly , uncertified. Don't try to misconstrue
writing of the laws that predate the existance
of Part 103. 103 was added to eliminate the confusion in terms and to get
the FEDS out of regulating ultralights.
I agree that we shouldn't create laws that don't exist.

But the facts are that under 91.309, you can't
tow a Sparrowhawk without a waiver because it is not a glider conforming
with part 91 unless it carries an N reg number.

Perhaps I am dense; here is part 91.309 in its entirety; please indicate the
part where is says that the glider being towed must be registered.

Sec. 91.309

Towing: Gliders.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft towing a glider unless--
(1) The pilot in command of the towing aircraft is qualified under Sec.
61.69 of this chapter;
(2) The towing aircraft is equipped with a tow-hitch of a kind, and
installed in a manner, that is approved by the Administrator;
(3) The towline used has breaking strength not less than 80 percent of the
maximum certificated operating weight of the glider and not more than twice
this operating weight. However, the towline used may have a breaking
strength more than twice the maximum certificated operating weight of the
glider if--
(i) A safety link is installed at the point of attachment of the towline to
the glider with a breaking strength not less than 80 percent of the maximum
certificated operating weight of the glider and not greater than twice this
operating weight.
(ii) A safety link is installed at the point of attachment of the towline to
the towing aircraft with a breaking strength greater, but not more than 25
percent greater, than that of the safety link at the towed glider end of the
towline and not greater than twice the maximum certificated operating weight
of the glider;
(4) Before conducting any towing operation within the lateral boundaries of
the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace
designated for an airport, or before making each towing flight within such
controlled airspace if required by ATC, the pilot in command notifies the
control tower. If a control tower does not exist or is not in operation, the
pilot in command must notify the FAA flight service station serving that
controlled airspace before conducting any towing operations in that
airspace; and
(5) The pilots of the towing aircraft and the glider have agreed upon a
general course of action, including takeoff and release signals, airspeeds,
and emergency procedures for each pilot.
(b) No pilot of a civil aircraft may intentionally release a towline, after
release of a glider, in a manner that endangers the life or property of
another.


Respectfully;
Vaughn

Timbro wrote:


How does such a light glider comply with FAR 91.309 (3)?
It seems that anything being towed would have to be within the 80% and
2 times rule for the rope and ring strength.

Tim
SES

Perhaps I misunderstand your question, but it complies with the
requirements like any other glider. The SparrowHawks I've seen towed use
a weak link and the standard towrope used by the heavier gliders. It's a
light weight link, of course, as you'd expect. You could also switch to
light weight towrope, but the weak link is usually the most convenient.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA