Update on the SparrowHawk and more....

Paul Repacholi wrote:

The preamble of the FARs includes the DEFINITION of a glider, and the
Sparrowhawk meets that 100%. As you said, there is no minimum weight.
It IS a glider, that is the LAW. Interpretation not needed.

That's the funniest thing I have heard so far today!

Before we even begin to debate whether or not interpretation is needed, perhaps
the whole of applicable law should be read and understood. Once that's done,
your views on interpretation may indeed change -- but they will still be irrelevant.

This tow pilot will wait for something a bit more concrete, thank you, like
actually going to the source and getting it in writing. I'm surprised the SSA
has not done that yet. They have a wider responsibility than that which they may
feel toward manufacturers of new domestic glider designs, as deeply as we all
wish to see these designs succeed .



Jack

"plasticguy" wrote in message
...

"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.


The Sparrowhawk is a glider in the legal language of the FAA. Any reference
that says "glider", not "certified glider" or aircraft includes the
Sparrowhawk. The word "aircraft" is never used to reference the towed
glider in this section. The gotcha, however, would seem to be that the tow
line strength is tied to the "maximum certificated weight of the glider".
The 155 lbs might be construed to be this weight, but perhpas not.

Part 91.309 regulates the (certified) towing aircraft, it does regulate the
towed aircraft, or it's pilot, except for the requirement to an agreed upon
course of action.

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.

No, 91.311 does not apply because the Sparrowhawk is, legally in the FARs, a
glider.


Scott.


I'm not a lawyer, FAA official, or administrative law judge; I don't know if
you are or not. But I see nothing in the FARs that prohibits a certified
aircraft from towing the Sparrowhawk glider. On the other hand, if I
actually ran a towing operation I would ask the FAA for a written
confirmation of this point.

I don't own a Sparrowhawk or a tow plane. I'm going flying.

"plasticguy" wrote in message
...

"Paul Repacholi" wrote in message
...
"Michael Stringfellow" writes:

FAR 91 and friends talks about towing a GLIDER, *not*, Glider other
than an Ultralight Glider, so it covers ALL gliders.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Paul.
Far 91 specifically excludes part 103 aircraft in FAR 91.1

True enough, 91.1 specifically excludes Part 103 vehicles from being
governed by part 91.

All references in Part 91 are to certified aircraft carrying
airworthiness certificates.

Where is it written?

The reference to Glider in FAR 91

What reference? The definition of "glider" is in Part 90 and Part 90
applies to Subchapters A thru K. Parts 91 and 103 are part of Subchapter F so
the definitions in Part 90 clearly apply to both parts. The SparrowHawk glider
clearly fits the part 90 definition of Glider 100%.

The uncertified SparrowHawk IS an ultralight under part 103, but it is ALSO
an aircraft and it is ALSO a glider according to the very clear definitions in
Part 90. If that is not the way that the FAA intended the world to be, (and I
think it is) then it will be up to them to change the letter of their
regulations. I remember having a discussion like this with my (then)
4-year-old. We were going on a trip and I was trying to explain to her that
when you are in Chicago you are also in Illinois. "How can you be in two places
at once?" she kept asking.

has been narrowed by FAR 91.203 to be a certified aircraft.

By your own words, FAR 91.203 does not apply to the SparrowHawk, and it
certainly does not modify part 90.

A glider is a class of aircraft, anything flying under FAR103
is an AIR VEHICLE, not an aircraft.

Then how do you explain part 90?

I know things can be confusing looking at it from the bottom of the world
(smile) but if you read what is written and not what you want to see, you'll
be better off.

I agree completly. Let's stick to the words on the paper.


This is a useful discussion, even if we never reach agreement, it sends us back
to review the FARs and makes us sharper.

Vaughn

..Dang!
If you guys want to go to the trouble to split hairs, why don't you make the
distinction between Law (Congress makes these, you know) and Regulation as
in FA_R_ s.
cheers!

Gosh, I contributed to a thread like this a while back and did all the
research. What it comes down to is aviation snobbery: there are
people who have hard-won pilot certificates and airworthiness
certificates and N-numbers who just can't STAND the idea of other
people, who fly without these things, being considered "real" pilots
in "proper" aircraft.

Yes, an ultralight vehicle is an aircraft. It meets the ONLY
definition of aircraft in the FARs, which is in Part 1. The
definition covers both Parts 91 and 103. Part 103 provides a
definition of a particular type of aircraft, similar to (but arguably
not intended as) a Category, like Rotorcraft or Balloon. Rotorcraft
and Balloons are aircraft too. Not only do ultralight vehicles meet
the definition of aircraft, but Part 103 states (in part) that
"notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of
aircraft..." precisely because it waives those requirements for
aircraft that are ultralight vehicles. The problem that arises if
ultralight vehicles are considered "not aircraft" is that then most of
14CFR wouldn't apply, and the regulators would NOT like that. There
are way too many regs that start off "Except as provided in [ref], no
person may operate a civil aircraft..." The FAA does not want to
waive all of them in one stroke!

Yes, an unpowered ultralight vehicle is a glider. It meets the ONLY
definition of... well, you get the idea.

Although Part 91 does NOT apply to ultralight vehicles, the towing
regulations in Part 91 DO apply to towing an unpowered ultralight
vehicle. Part 91 does not apply to the ultralight, but it DOES apply
to the towplane (unless it also is an ultralight). Since the object
the towplane is towing IS a glider, the regulations appropriate to
towing a glider apply to the towplane. The reference to "maximum
certificated operating weight of the glider" is unfortunate, because
it (presumably inadvertently) forgets about gliders that don't have a
certificated operating weight, such as ultralight vehicles. I don't
recall whether gliders with an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate
have a certificated operating weight, although I think perhaps they
do. Certainly one can be included in the operating limitations: I
don't recall if a maximum weight is required. Anyone?

What's more entertaining, however, is to consider what the
inapplicability of Part 91 to ultralight vehicles allows...

91.117 Aircraft Speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
more than 250 knots.

Whoa! Clip the wings on those Sparrowhawks, let's see the Speed
Demons!

"Finbar" wrote in message
om...
Yes, an ultralight vehicle is an aircraft. It meets the ONLY
definition of aircraft in the FARs, which is in Part 1. The
definition covers both Parts 91 and 103. Part 103 provides a
definition of a particular type of aircraft, similar to (but arguably
not intended as) a Category, like Rotorcraft or Balloon. Rotorcraft
and Balloons are aircraft too. Not only do ultralight vehicles meet
the definition of aircraft, but Part 103 states (in part) that
"notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of
aircraft..." precisely because it waives those requirements for
aircraft that are ultralight vehicles. The problem that arises if
ultralight vehicles are considered "not aircraft" is that then most of
14CFR wouldn't apply, and the regulators would NOT like that. There
are way too many regs that start off "Except as provided in [ref], no
person may operate a civil aircraft..." The FAA does not want to
waive all of them in one stroke!

Yes, an unpowered ultralight vehicle is a glider. It meets the ONLY
definition of... well, you get the idea.

Although Part 91 does NOT apply to ultralight vehicles, the towing
regulations in Part 91 DO apply to towing an unpowered ultralight
vehicle. Part 91 does not apply to the ultralight, but it DOES apply
to the towplane (unless it also is an ultralight). Since the object
the towplane is towing IS a glider, the regulations appropriate to
towing a glider apply to the towplane. The reference to "maximum
certificated operating weight of the glider" is unfortunate, because
it (presumably inadvertently) forgets about gliders that don't have a
certificated operating weight, such as ultralight vehicles. I don't
recall whether gliders with an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate
have a certificated operating weight, although I think perhaps they
do. Certainly one can be included in the operating limitations: I
don't recall if a maximum weight is required. Anyone?

Max airframe weight is set at 155# by Part 103, but max gross is set by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer could help by supplying an appropriate weak
link.

When this discussion first started a few months ago, I was initially
convinced otherwise (and am still willing to be shown "the light of day"), but I
am increasingly convinced that the regulatory story is exactly wat you say
above.

That said, towing gliders is a tough, dangerous and expensive way to make a
living. I support the right of any tow operator to refuse a tow for virtually
any reason; even reasons I may disagree with. If towing ultralight gliders
proves to be safe and legal, market forces will quickly set things right.

What's more entertaining, however, is to consider what the
inapplicability of Part 91 to ultralight vehicles allows...
91.117 Aircraft Speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
more than 250 knots.

My gosh! I never noticed that. The max level speed and max stall speed
only apply to powered ultralights. That could have bad implications for a
future self-launching SparrowHawk.

Regards
Vaughn

Whoa! Clip the wings on those Sparrowhawks, let's see the Speed
Demons!


What's more entertaining, however, is to consider what the
inapplicability of Part 91 to ultralight vehicles allows...

91.117 Aircraft Speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may
operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of
more than 250 knots.

Whoa! Clip the wings on those Sparrowhawks, let's see the Speed
Demons!

Could someone please clarify this for me:
If your ultralight left the factory at 154 pounds which
is just under the classification weight of an ultralight
and you add O2, ballistit, data loggers, amongst other
things and took the weight up over the 155 limit,
are you still considered to be an ultralight or did
you just jump into a different category or class?
Brian

"Brian Iten" wrote in message
...
Could someone please clarify this for me:
If your ultralight left the factory at 154 pounds which
is just under the classification weight of an ultralight
and you add O2, ballistit, data loggers, amongst other
things and took the weight up over the 155 limit,
are you still considered to be an ultralight or did
you just jump into a different category or class?

Good question. My take on that is 155# is the limit for the empty
vehicle. If your oxygen system (for example) is portable, then it is part of
the payload just like the pilot. If it is bolted in, then arguably the system
would be considered part of the airframe and your ultralight is now overweight.

The fact is, the above is just my opinion because the regulation is
written with primitive simplicity and is open to interpretation. Someone could
even take the position that the 155 pounds includes the pilot!

Vaughn


Brian

Thanks for the response Vaughn. I would love to hear
what would happen if someone showed up at the glider
port with a set of scales and weighed one of these
SparrowHawks as it sits. I guess I wouldn't be surprised
if 85% or more of them were over the 155 pound ultralight
limit.

I guess that if you are under the 155 pound limit,
then you can continue the argument of to tow or not
to tow an ultralight. But if you are exceeding the
155 pound limit, then you are no longer considered
an ultralight and need to step up to the plate and
get an N number. Then, there would not be a big discussion
over the legality of towing.....

Now I have another question. If you are flying a Sparrowhawk
and are trying to break an ultralight record (not sure
if someone is going to come up with another record
category like the World Class) are you going to have
to weigh your ultralight before and after the flight
to verify that you are truly an ultralight?

Brian

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