Is a motorglider a "powered aircraft"

Sorry that was intended to follow Todd's post (16).

"Andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip
As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow hook installation
on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider with a tow hook
(on the aft end)?


Diamond Katana Xtreme HK36T

from dealer data sheet
tricycle 27:1 or tailwheel 28:1 l/d
mt 1200lb - maxgross 1698lb (Canadian certification, FAA cert 1750?)
span 54'6"
Rotax 914F turbo 115hp - prop hydraulic cs full feathering
factory optional towing kit $4,152
max tow weight 1,156lb

I would suspect (but cannot confirm) that this aircraft is fully certified
by the factory as an FAA motor glider including the tow configuration. I do
not know how it would be defined by FAA

The next question that occurs to me is whether the unfortunate recent 48?hr
commercial glider pilot in Hawaii would have been legal to give scenics or
to tow gliders or banners (shudder) with this aircraft for pay.

It's guys like Bob C. that make the USA the
land of the free and the home of the brave.

By that I mean the land where he is free to
do things that the rest of us find a bit...er...quirky
...but very exciting.

and home of the brave (HIM) who are willing to
try it out.

God Bless you, Bob. You have some big stones, man.


At 00:00 13 May 2005, Bob C wrote:
Very interesting question. I'm not sure of the answer,
but I do appreciate the post that showed the AC with
a definition of 'motorglider'. I've been looking for
that one since I started the jet sailplane project.
I have every intention of stretching the limits.
How about a 250 MPH twin jet motorglider with a 400
mile range? Can be flown on a glider license without
a medical.

BTW, I routinely tow behind a helicopter at airshows.
I endorsed the helicopter pilot's logbook for towing
after simulated tows in a C150/150. At that time I
had never even flown a helicopter. There is no aircraft
cat/class limitation on a tow endorsement, so he was
good to go in anything he was rated for.

Bob C.


At 18:00 12 May 2005, M B wrote:
I wonder what the insurance companies think.
In my experience, I've found their opinion of whether
a particular type of flight is covered to be far more
important
than anything the FAA comes up with.

If I had an accident, by far my biggest concern isn't
whether I'm legal, but whether I am insured.

To give you an idea of the impact of insurance,
a friend is selling a Lancair IVP (pressurized
piston driven 360hp mach .5 single) for
less than what a 20 year old A36 Bonanza
sells for. The difference: the experimental IVP is
almost totally uninsurable...

Look at Cessna 310 price/perfomance vs. insurability
and you come to the same conclusion.

At 17:00 12 May 2005, Andy wrote:
Todd, I think we are all in agreement that a motor
glider is a powered
aircraft. The area that needs to be interpreted is
whether a pilot
with a glider rating (there is no FAA motor glider
rating) has a rating
for a powered aircraft. If that pilot does, then do
all glider pilots
have a rating for powered aircraft? If not, then is
the authorization
by grandfathering or endorsement to be considered a
rating. (I am
qualified to fly tail wheel airplanes but I don't have
a tail wheel
rating because there isn't one.) I hope Greg will post
the answer is he
ever gets one.

To answer 5Z - I don't think there is any doubt that
an airship is a
powered aircraft so yes, a pilot with glider and an
airship ratings
would meet the letter of 61.69.

Andy


Mark J. Boyd







Mark J. Boyd

My $1.05 opinion...

The FAA won't even look at this as
a request, because it is too low down
the priority list.

If an accident occurs, they will look,
and will find that if the pilot was rated
for gliders and had the self-launch endorsement and
met all the
other tow endorsement and currency requirements, that
they won't do any
enforcement action. If required by the
insurer, someone at FAA will write it out,
sign it, and stick a stamp on it.

Whether this is good enough for an insurer...that is
an entirely
different matter. With insurers, the ask
permission vs. beg forgiveness STRONGLY favors the
ask permission idea, in my experience.

At 21:01 16 May 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
'Andy' wrote:

So despite the various arguments I think it's going
to come down to
whether the FAA considers a glider to be a powered
aircraft.

I don't think I'd phrase it quite like that. I think
it
comes down to whether the FAA thinks the holder of
a glider
rating is someone who 'holds at least a private pilot
certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft'

(Note I
said glider, not motor glider, since the issued rating
is glider not
motor glider).

It is true that the issued rating is 'glider,' but
it's also
true that the FAA considers the term 'glider' to include
powered aircraft (also called 'powered gliders') and
non-powered aircraft.

AC No: 21.17-2A -'Powered gliders are considered to
be
powered aircraft for the purpose of complying with
91.205.'

The FAA defines a glider, and that definition allows
the
use of power, but not as the primary means of flight.
I could not find
an FAA definition of 'powered aircraft' although there
are definitions
of several subordinates, including powered parachutes.

I don't believe there is an FAA definition of 'powered
aircraft.' There are AC references that tell us powered
gliders are powered aircraft and have to comply with
all
FARs using the term 'powered aircraft.' There are
also AC
references stating that a motorglider or a powered
glider is
a 'glider.'

Anyway perhaps Greg K now has a feel for the sort of
argument/discussion he is likely to get into when he
seeks an official
interpretation.

Yep. I definitely agree with this.

As a practical matter has anyone seen a 337 for a tow
hook installation
on a motor glider, or a U.S. registered motor glider
with a tow hook
(on the aft end)?

Two more great questions. If Greg K does ask the FAA,
I'd
love to know the answer.


Mark J. Boyd

'Towing is not actually an endorsement'...hmmm

I disagree. 61.69 has the word 'endorsement'
in two different places. I would suggest you review
it and
I would then ask if you think a non-regulatory
Advisory Circular supercedes this 61.69 regulation.


The AC has no Sport Pilot endorsements either,
yet I myself have endorsed for this privilege also.
This doesn't bother me in the slightest...

At 17:00 17 May 2005, Paul Lynch wrote:
OK, but powered aircraft refers to a powered glider
or ultralight. There
are some gliders capable of towing a light glider or
ultralight. Your
license tells you what AIRCRAFT you can fly, the CFI
endorsements can expand
that by adding 'subsets' (my choice of word) such
as tailwheel, high
performance, or self-launch. Towing is not actually
an endorsement. It is
training/currency that must be logged. You will not
see any sample
endorsement in the AC covering instructor endorsements
concerning towing.

'Andy' wrote in message
ups.com...
Paul Lynch wrote:
There seems to be a lot of over analyzing in this
entire thread
(IMHO).
'Powered aircraft' has nothing to do with what you
are legally
authorized to
fly.

You should probably read 61.69 which was the subject
of this thread.
The FAA believes, and states, that being rated to
fly 'powered
aircraft' has everything to do with being qualified
to tow.

Andy




Mark J. Boyd