FAA

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

At 21:18 18 August 2003, Adp wrote:

I base the minimum equipment rules on the fact that
there are many gliders flying today that do not meet
minimum VFR requirements (of US FAR 91.205) They are
not
applicable to GLIDERS!

Geez, Louise! By this rationale, VFR cloud clearances
don't exist because everybody talks about being 'right
there at cloudbase.'

Look at any glider POH or placards, this is the MEL
for a glider. It is irrelevant who the certificating
authority is. Your Airworthiness certificate will have
the operating requirements.

Egad, we're about to digress into 91.213 on the topic
of approved MELs, but I'll do as I'm told...

Am looking at the POH for my glider - a 1981 ASW-20.
Minimum Equipment list: ASI, altimeter and a 4-part
Safety Harness. Additional equipment for cloud flying:
a turn & bank, compass and VHF Transceiver. (A total
aside to this discussion: the POH specifies make &
model for each item. Some are no longer in production.)

Incorporated into this glider's Experimental Airworthiness
certificate is an Operating Limitations page - a boilerplate
form issued by a west coast FAA office; it limits US
ops to Day VFR only, with instrumentation as listed
in FAR 91.205.

You see, 91.205 - on the face of it - applies to powered
aircraft including motorgliders certificated in the
standard airworthiness category; depending on FAA-issued
operating limitations, however, these and/or other
instrumentation/equipment requirements may also apply
to an individual aircraft issued an Experimental airworthiness
certificate.

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!

You can say it 'till you're blue in the face, if you
want. We already agree that in terms of aircraft category,
a motorglider is a GLIDER. (Why are we shouting?) What
you steadfastly refuse to believe is that in terms
of 91.205 applicability, (1) a motorglider is also
a 'powered aircraft' and (2) in certain instances,
91.205 can apply to an Experimental glider with or
without a motor.

Judy

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

I know, go ahead and poke! Pokin at ya, pokin at ya, as what's her name
would say.
I could only wish that it were true. I get questions all of the time about
"FARs" and incorrect answers, as well.
Being an obsessive-compulsive pilot, this is one of my crusades. So far,
I've not made a single convert.

Now with regard to dive brakes vs. spoilers...........................

;-}

Allan



"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
...
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.

Man is it ever fun to poke at Allan! --this is a wink
It's almost amazing, but whatever they're called, everyone seems
to know what you mean...kinda like dive brakes vs. spoilers ;-P
Oh boy, here it comes, another NEW thread!!!


P.S. I think a lot of people know they're CFR's but find it
much more fun to say FAR's and see who gets ALL RILED UP!!! ;-PPPPPP

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.

Man is it ever fun to poke at Allan! --this is a wink
It's almost amazing, but whatever they're called, everyone seems
to know what you mean...kinda like dive brakes vs. spoilers ;-P
Oh boy, here it comes, another NEW thread!!!


P.S. I think a lot of people know they're CFR's but find it
much more fun to say FAR's and see who gets ALL RILED UP!!! ;-PPPPPP

Yes, let's do that (talk rationally)....

First, get off the high horse concerning CFR versus FAR. You are correct,
but the regs used to be called FARs and several FAA publications still call
them that.

Second, unless you can quote a specific reference in CFR 14, there is no
definition of "powered aircraft". Powered-lift, yes, but not powered
aircraft. Therefore a motor glider is a powered aircraft (when the motor is
operating) as are dirigibles, helicopters, gyrocopters, and the everpresent
airplane. A motorglider certainly can cause confusion, and there are
"holes" in the regs. I think you will find the requirements for instrument
and night flight clearly apply to the motorglider.

Third, if an aircraft is certified with a specific configuration that is
different than stated in the CFRs, then the certification takes precedence.
Changing the aircraft configuration can result in the aircraft coming under
a restriction that did not previously apply. The change (via an STC, or
337, or other method) will normally detail what the restrictions are.

Finally, your assertion that 91.205 does not apply to motorgliders is
incorrect. Read 205 carefully and you will see it does distinguishes
between airplane and aircraft. While a motor glider is never an airplane it
is a powered aircraft when operating under power. Similarly, a motorglider
under power cannot claim right-of-way over an airplane because the
motorglider is certificated in the glider category.

Paul


"ADP" wrote in message
...
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

FAR 61.93 only applies to "student pilots." This pilot is a
private pilot, not a student pilot. 61.93 does not apply to
him.

This pilot is certainly not a "private pilot - airplane."
So what section is he operating under for 61.31(c)? Under section
(2) or section (3)? If it's section (2) then he's got the
instructor on board (receiving training, pretty hard to
do while solo).



If you say you aren't under (1), then under (3)
you're going to need something in writing better than
"Billy Bob CFI told me verbally it was ok."

He has a written endorsement for solo in airplanes.

What does the written endorsement say? Just "ok to solo stuff"?
Is there a signature of a CFI and endorsement? No section
number? Perhaps it says "OK to fly any plane anywhere?"

So write me a sample endorsement. If it doesn't reference
anything in the CFR, then the CFI is making up his own
stuff. If it references some student pilot section,
then it applies only to student pilots. If the guy
says he isn't a student pilot, then the endorsement is
invalid and we're back to 61.31(d)(1).

We had a local private pilot - glider who wanted to take
power lessons. Her CFI gave her some dual, and when it
came time for solo, asked our local examiner. The DPE
called the FSDO, the FSDO said she was a student pilot.
Get her a medical and sign it as a student and write the
endorsements out of the student pilot section of 61.

This was a relief to the CFI, since the pilot also was
not flight review current, and could have only gained such
currency in a glider.

Common sense also seems to hold up that a private pilot - glider
with no flight review, no medical, no X-C endorsements and
no X-C training or experience should not be flying from
Watsonville to Tallahasee.

Any CFI who writes an endorsement without citing a section,
or without giving the required training, would be pretty
bold. Any pilot who didn't comply with the section in the
endorsement, because it didn't apply because he isn't a student
pilot, would be violating section 61.31(d)(1).

I pointed this out to the NPRM sport folks also. A glider
sport pilot could be endorsed for J-3 cub sport license by a sport CFI
without any X-C training. In the sport case this was explicit.
NOT a good idea. Dunno if it's changed in the final version.

Judy Ruprecht... wrote:

snip, snip, snip

because everybody talks about being 'right
there at cloudbase.'

Yeah, I've always wondered about that and I've decided I'm glad they
don't listen to us on 123.3. I like being up there where it's cool and
you can't see very far...

Egad, we're about to digress into 91.213 on the topic
of approved MELs,

One of my favorites!! Fraught with landmines and cowpies.

Incorporated into this glider's Experimental Airworthiness
certificate is an Operating Limitations page - a boilerplate
form issued by a west coast FAA office; it limits US
ops to Day VFR only, with instrumentation as listed
in FAR 91.205.

Ahh, yes - the old "incorporated by reference" guidance springs to
mind. Lucky you with the pre-1993 letter. I liked your previous post,
Judy: "Aren't FAR's fun?" I sure think so!!

Soon, I expect someone will post the FAR 1 definition of Glider... the
one with the word "principally" in it.

This is fun, but can we use apply the time spent cutting and pasting
rules to our Wings program? I better get my 1-26 over here, I
obviously need something to work on in the evenings.

Jim

That's how I interpret it. (technically, he could "fly the
motorglider around the field" if he aerotowed for launch :-)

The endorsement is for self-launch, not motorglider. Interestingly,
one must have a seaplane rating to fly a seaplane (even if amphib
and with the gear left down and only operated off runways).
I think the "sea" and "land" should be
ASE and AME endorsements (like aerotow or self-launch is to gliders),
rather than checkrides.

The cautious CFI may limit the solo endorsement by valid
duration, distance from home, flight in alphabet airspace.

I'm going to say it is more restrictive than that. If
a pilot does not have category and class license, then
he's a student pilot and follows all of those rules when
flying a (non-experimental) category and class not on the current
license.

This means 61.89, 61.93, 61.87, 61.95 need to be followed.
And no passengers allowed 61.89(a)(1).

If a person comes to me for training, I don't write all these
limitations when I solo them. They are in the regs.
I only write endorsements in compliance with 61.87 and
61.93 as the training is complete. If
it turns out later they had a private - glider and didn't
tell me about it, I wouldn't add these limitations, I'd
believe they were always in effect.

I'd say that the pilot is NEVER "exercising the privileges
of a pilot certificate with a glider category rating"
while flying a non-experimental Cessna 152. So none of
these privileges carry over.

And be careful about 61.63. Students for additional ratings
may have great experience, but when a CFI endorses that the
student is proficient in the areas of operation, there'd
better be a training endorsement. One instructor never gave
X-C training to a multi who was adding a single-engine rating.
Ooops. The guy ran out of gas AFTER he got his rating, because
he had never switched tanks before. One gal failed her instrument
checkride because she'd never done a hold. Ooops! Clearly the
CFI endorsement was falsified.

Ah, Todd, Todd. There you go using logic to demolish my arguments. How
unfair, how cruel!
A perusal of AC 21.17-2a reveals, although it starts out by observing:

Subject: TYPE CERTIFICATION--FIXEDWING

GLIDERS (SAILPLANES),

INCLUDING POWERED GLIDERS

Date: 2/10/93

Initiated By: ACE-100

AC No: 21.17-2A

Change:

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information and guidance
concerning acceptable

means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with § 21.17(b) of part
21 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) for type certification of gliders and powered gliders.
Accordingly, this material is

neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a
regulation. General guidance

relative to glider type certification is also provided.



It also includes the following:



b. Additional Criteria for Powered Gliders.

(1) Powered fixed-wing gliders may be type certificated under Section
21.17(b) if:

(i) The number of occupants does not exceed two;

(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds); and

(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
kg/m2 (0.62

lb./ft.2).

NOTE: These criteria originated from JAR-22.

h. Section 91.205 of the FAR. Powered gliders are considered to be powered
aircraft for the

purpose of complying with § 91.205.





Oh how crushed am I as I search for Crow to eat. Oh how unkind this cruel
world.
A couple of caveats to recover as much of my ego as possible:
14 CFR 91.205 applies only to aircraft with "Standard" airworthiness
certificates

and

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.

Agreed. You are subject to rules that apply to "aircraft"
and to those that apply to "powered aircraft," but not any
that apply only to "airplanes."


Actually, it turns out that you do. If you turn off your engine, in my MG
you lose everything electrical except a radio.
You are now a pure glider and fly by glider rules. Incidentally there is no
differentiation between glider and motor glider in the right of way rules.
(14 CFR 91.113)

So, you were (mostly) correct and I stand corrected. I apologize to you and
to Judy for being strident as well as incorrect.
But think of this, with out Lenny or Al, who is left but me to take shots
at?

Allan



"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...

"ADP" wrote:

Yes, a glider is an aircraft by definition but a motor glider is not a
powered aircraft, by definition.

So cite the definition you think applies.