Self-Launch (Motorgliders) Who's Authorized
Martin J. Eiler
It may not have been clear, but the question I have is "What
do the FAR's require for self launching motorgliders?" Are
glider pilots self launching with a rating that says
"Private Glider Aero-tow only", I've been told there is a
"ground launch only" restriction, although I've never seen
it. Apparently, some (all?) FAA Examiners have taken the
position that self launching is not permitted with either
launch restriction on the rating, but since you can remove
the aerotow only restriction by demonstrating winch launch,
demonstrating winch launch permits the self launch.
Todd Pattist Ventus C - WH
You are correct in that the FAR's do not address your question.
You need to look at an FAA Inspectors Handbook 8700.1
CHG 6 Vol. 2 Page 1-25 Dated 10-01-90. I asked a similar
question at an Initial Designated Pilot Examiner Clinic in
Oklahoma City, Ok in 1993. It was researched and I was given
a photo copy of the page. I quote the following.
" (2) The pilot certificate of a glider pilot shall bear a limitation
depending upon the launch capability (or capabilities) the
pilot demonstrates during a practical test. Gliders are
launched by aero tow or ground tow (automobile, pulley,
or winch) or are self-launched (motorized glider).
Under current regulations any person with a glider rating,
regardless of the tow demonstrated, automatically has
self-launch privileges. However inspectors shall encourage
glider pilots who have not demonstrated self-launch
proficiency to obtain a flight check in accordance with
Advisory Circular 61-94, Pilot Transition Course for Self-
Launching or Powered Sailplanes (Motorgliders)."
A Private Pilot Glider aero tow only, may also self-launch.
But cannot ground tow.
Private Pilot Glider ground tow only, may also self-launch.
But cannot aero tow.
A Private Pilot Glider self-launch can only self-launch.
In order to eliminate any confusion among the Examiners
you mentioned. It would be a good idea to contact your
local FSDO for a copy. Just in case there has been any
new update. There are plans to make changes in this
area, but who knows how long until they can be approved.
Most insurance carriers will require some type of Instructor
Sign-off.
Good Luck
M Eiler
WP-1-179
tomk...@aol.com
The new part 61 will rectify this situation. Expect news within 30 days
or so.
Tom Knauff
hel...@isl.stanford.edu
In <01bbcedb$8b4a90a0$0b37...@caracole.ccis.com>, "Martin J. Eiler" <Cara...@ccis.com> writes:
>
>A Private Pilot Glider aero tow only, may also self-launch.
>But cannot ground tow.
>Private Pilot Glider ground tow only, may also self-launch.
>But cannot aero tow.
>A Private Pilot Glider self-launch can only self-launch.
>
I got my ticket on aero-tow and have the "aero-tow"
only restriction imprinted thereon. I did the Adivsory
Circular transition to motor gliders and got a log book
endorsement from a CFIG and now can fly motor gliders.
I believe that ground launch works roughly the same way --
that is with a CFIG instructing and signing off, as opposed
to a new check ride.
My question: If a pilot does his check ride in a motor
glider, can he get aero-tow and ground-launch permission
via a CFIG log book endorsement, or does he have to
go through a new check ride?
I'm interested because I've recommended a local Grob
109B that's available for rental as an easy way for
some power pilot friends to get into soaring, but wonder
what that means if they later want to move to pure
sailplanes.
Many thanks.
Martin Hellman
Doug Haluza
hel...@isl.stanford.edu wrote in article <568mbq$k...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> In <01bbcedb$8b4a90a0$0b37...@caracole.ccis.com>, "Martin J. Eiler"
<Cara...@ccis.com> writes:
>
> I got my ticket on aero-tow and have the "aero-tow"
> only restriction imprinted thereon. I did the Adivsory
> Circular transition to motor gliders and got a log book
> endorsement from a CFIG and now can fly motor gliders.
> I believe that ground launch works roughly the same way --
> that is with a CFIG instructing and signing off, as opposed
> to a new check ride.
Nope. Both the aero tow and ground launch require an check ride with the
FAA or a designee. You can get signed off for solo by an instructor and
could theoretically fly forever in your single place glider on that
endorsement if you already have a private certificate, but this would be
rather shady. If I were your instructor, I would cancel the endorsement if
you didn't take the check ride within a reasonable amount of time. I don't
know if this will be cleared up in the new part 61.
>
> My question: If a pilot does his check ride in a motor
> glider, can he get aero-tow and ground-launch permission
> via a CFIG log book endorsement, or does he have to
> go through a new check ride?
>
As above, yes with a solo endorsement, but the private or commercial rating
require a check ride.
Steve Peltz
In article <01bbd083$025a8300$37151a26@default>,
Doug Haluza <dha...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>Nope. Both the aero tow and ground launch require an check ride with the
>FAA or a designee. You can get signed off for solo by an instructor and
That brings up a question I've always had: where exactly do the FARs say
that an instructor can authorize a pilot with an aero-tow-only restriction
to fly solo ground-launch? It is not another category/class, it is only
a restriction.
This is another place where getting a pilot's license seems to restrict
you more than a student license (the other example being that a power
pilot who needs a flight review can not, apparently, be signed off to
fly solo in a glider without getting a flight review in an airplane; if
he no longer has access to an airplane, has an expired medical, or whatever,
this could be difficult; yet a student can be signed off to fly solo without
ever having received a flight review in anything, although I'm not sure why
THAT is, either, since the flight review regulation doesn't make any
exceptions for student pilots, and they sure as heck are acting as pilot in
command whenever they're flying solo).
JHOLL4
OK, now I'm curious. From a legal point of view, what is
the difference between a power plane and a motorglider?
It's not obvious that a PP-SEL can't just jump in a motorglider (e.g., RF4)
and go--it's certainly a powered single-engine landplane--so I assume there
is a very specific definition somewhere in the FARs that resolves
this issue. If so, what is it?
--Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
Wings and Wheels
certification
--=20
Wings and Wheels
JHOLL4@ wrote in article <56coi9$k...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
OK, now I'm curious. From a legal point of view, what is
the difference between a power plane and a motorglider?
It's not obvious that a PP-SEL can't just jump in a motorglider (e.g., =
RF4)
and go--it's certainly a powered single-engine landplane--so I assume =
there
is a very specific definition somewhere in the FARs that resolves
this issue. If so, what is it?
--Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
=20
hel...@isl.stanford.edu
In <56coi9$k...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, JHOLL4@ writes:
>
> OK, now I'm curious. From a legal point of view, what is
>the difference between a power plane and a motorglider?
>and go--it's certainly a powered single-engine landplane--so I assume there
>is a very specific definition somewhere in the FARs that resolves
>this issue. If so, what is it?
>
> --Cathy Mancus <man...@vnet.ibm.com>
>
>
Airworthiness lists it as a glider. Hence it follows that
one needs a glider license to fly it! (Which is what I
have.) I _think_ it's up to the manufacturer to decide
which it is (power plane or self launching glider)
and to certify it accordingly, tho there are some limits.
For example, the Stemme's max gross -- and a number
of other motor gliders -- appears to be limited more
by a German reg that says motor gliders can't weigh
more than a certain amount. Another example, I've
run across is the single ignition in the Grob 109A
motor glider. A friend who owns one told me that
was necessary to get it certified as a motor glider.
(A dangerous requirement in my opinion.) That
is apparently no longer an issue as my SD has
dual ignition.
Martin Hellman
Martin Gregory
"Wings and Wheels" <wi...@madbbs.com> writes:
(lots of '=' signs and '20's deleted...)
> JHOLL4@ wrote in article <56coi9$k...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>...
>
> OK, now I'm curious. From a legal point of view, what is
> the difference between a power plane and a motorglider?
> It's not obvious that a PP-SEL can't just jump in a motorglider (e.g.,
> RF4)
> and go--it's certainly a powered single-engine landplane--so I assume =
> there
> is a very specific definition somewhere in the FARs that resolves
> this issue. If so, what is it?
Also, supposing they can jump in and fly it, can they turn the engine
off and try to soar it?
In fact, could they legally take an aerotow and not even turn the
engine on?
egree...@aol.com
In article <56coi9$k...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>, JHOLL4@ writes:
> OK, now I'm curious. From a legal point of view, what is
>the difference between a power plane and a motorglider?
>It's not obvious that a PP-SEL can't just jump in a motorglider (e.g.,
RF4)
>and go--it's certainly a powered single-engine landplane--so I assume
there
>is a very specific definition somewhere in the FARs that resolves
>this issue. If so, what is it?
A regulatory difference is the certification: an airplane is certified
(certificated?) in the airplane category, a motorglider is certificated in
the glider category. There is no "motorglider" category in our country as
yet, only glider. You must have a glider rating to fly a glider legally,
even if the glider in question looks like an airplane, sounds like an
airplane, and is seen in the company of airplanes. The "touring"
motorglider is a peculiar duck, alright.
We just had a club member go through this with a Taifun he purchased...off
to Minden for the addition of the glider rating to his multitude of other
ratings!
> OK, now I'm curious. From a legal point of view, what is
>the difference between a power plane and a motorglider?
Paraphrased, what standards must an "airplane"t meet to be certified as a
glider? I'm not sure, but I think is does involve a minimum glide ratio,
a maximun hp, minimum climb rate, and a number of other things that
ensures it really can glide, i.e., a Cessna 150 definitely won't qualify.
mlb...@skcla.monsanto.com
>> OK, now I'm curious. From a legal point of view, what is
>>the difference between a power plane and a motorglider?
>
> (certificated?) in the airplane category, a motorglider is certificated in
> the glider category. There is no "motorglider" category in our country as
> yet, only glider. You must have a glider rating to fly a glider legally,
> even if the glider in question looks like an airplane, sounds like an
> airplane, and is seen in the company of airplanes. The "touring"
> motorglider is a peculiar duck, alright.
>
a motor glider (if you have just a glider rating)? Seems like it would make
sense given the difference in flying a powered aircraft over a non-powered one.
Out of curiosity what is the typical range of a motor glider? Can you fly one
like a regular powered aircraft or do you need to resort to soaring to get
anywhere?
It would seem like it would make sense for there to be a seperate category for
motor gliders. I wonder what the FAA and the pilots think?
hel...@isl.stanford.edu
>Do you need to have had instruction or have a logbook endorsement before flying
>a motor glider (if you have just a glider rating)?
Log book endorsement by CFIG following an FAA Advisory Circular which lists
appropriate transition training. Technically, this is only advice from the
FAA, not a requirement. But insurance companies effectively make it
a requirement, which is a good thing in my opinon. For a glider pilot with
a power rating as well, the training is minimal. For a glider pilot without
a power rating, the training is more extensive, including both dual and
solo x-country flights.
>Out of curiosity what is the typical range of a motor glider? Can you fly one
>like a regular powered aircraft or do you need to resort to soaring to get
>anywhere?
There are two types of motorized gliders, which are sometimes differentiated
by calling them motor gliders and self launching sailplanes. The motor glider
is typically a front engine machine with two main wheels, capable of taxiing
without a wing runner, and in general can function as a power plane when
the engine is on. It usually pays a penalty for this in gliding mode, due to
the drag of the gear and (feathered) prop. Self launching sailplanes
typically have retractable engines with pusher props and one main wheel.
When their engines are retracted, their glide performance is up there
with the best of the pure sailplanes; but under power their gliding
performance is terrible due to the high drag of the engine pod and
prop out there in the slip stream. Motor gliders have ranges similar
to that of small power planes (my Super Dimona has a 21 gal tank, cruises at
95-100 kts, and burns about 4 gph after initial climb, so 350-400 nm
hops are comfortable). In contrast slsp's usually carry small amounts
of fuel and are not intended for extended cruising.
The one exception to all this is the Stemme Chrysallis which
has a front engine with a folding, retractable propeller and
retractable main gear. It has cruise performance similar to my plane
and a 50:1 glide ratio (compared to my 28:1). But it also costs over
$200k new and not much less used.
Mike Thompson
In <r8ralx4...@asc.sps.mot.com>, Martin Gregory <mgre...@asc.sps.mot.com> writes:
>"Wings and Wheels" <wi...@madbbs.com> writes:
>
>Also, supposing they can jump in and fly it, can they turn the engine
>off and try to soar it?
Absolutely - that's the point. They're heavier than the pure sailplane
and so need good lift to soar, but if I can do it over this flat, tree
covered Central Texas where it's as hot at 3K as it is on the ground,
it can be done anywhere.
>
>In fact, could they legally take an aerotow and not even turn the
>engine on?
>
Leagally, sure, but I don't know of any equipped for this. They're
all engine up front (talking about motorgliders, now - not powered
sailplanes).
- Mike
********************* No IBM Opinions Here! ********************
Michael E. Thompson (Mich...@ausvmr.vnet.ibm.com)
T/L 678-0779 (512) 838-0779
IBM Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Ex-AX1 Sub Hunter P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew
PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut
FLY FAST - FLY LOW - TURN LEFT!
********************* No IBM Opinions Here! ********************
emoo...@aol.com
Whether to treat a motor-glider as a glider
or a sailplane is a difficult issue to discuss.
Having tought both power plane and gliders,
with over 6,000 hours instruction given, I offer
this.
When flying a motor glider (such as the Grob 109),
the pilot should treat it as a glider and use
all of his best gliding landing technique; throw away
ideas of a power plane when it is time to land.
In most power planes, the certification process
is such that if the landing approach is botched, just
put the throttle forward, ease the flaps off gently
and climb away.
The puny engine on most motor-gliders makes that
an unhealthy thing to do.
I think the power pilot should have considerable
glider time and experience before charging
off in a motor glider.
Elmer Mooring (T8)
Mike Thompson
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Mooring on this issue. I am nowhere
near a 6K-hour pilot, but most of my time in the last 5 years has been in
the Grob 109B motorglider.
When I execute a go-around in the grob, simply retracting the spoilers gives
me enough lift that it is difficult to hold the aircraft down to fly a low
photo pass. I have never had a problem taking the Grob around from any point.
The reason I want to disagree in this forum is that I think motorgliders
offer many people a chance to fly where they otherwise wouldn't/couldn't.
For one thing, one can a get a glider license (tow restriction) without
a required medical - and many prople are physically able to fly safely, but
FAA requirements would preclude them from gaining a PP license (say someone
had a heart attack 5 years ago but have recovered and live a normal life
now - unless they lie on their medical form, they can't fly. I know that
self-certification is heading our way, but it's not here yet - that I know
of).
Secondly, Cost. Many folks would be fine flying a motorglider locally and
never intend to use the aircraft for transportation. To get the PP, however,
they would have to spend $$ to get all that X-country time. A tow-restricted
glider's license does not (did not, anyway) require that.
Motorgliders aren't as available as traumahawks, but were an aspiring pilot
to have access to one, I think a motorglider is the _perfect_ place to start -
for power or glider licenses.
YMMV :)
Jeff Knell
hel...@isl.stanford.edu writes:
> There are two types of motorized gliders, which are sometimes
> differentiated by calling them motor gliders and self launching
> sailplanes.
> The motor glider is typically a front engine machine with two
> main wheels, capable of taxiing without a wing runner ...
> Self launching sailplanes typically have retractable engines
> with pusher props and one main wheel. When their engines are
> retracted, their glide performance is up there with the best
> of the pure sailplanes ...
> The one exception to all this is the Stemme Chrysallis which
> has a front engine with a folding, retractable propeller and
> retractable main gear. But it also costs over $200k ...
There is one other expection, although it is not (yet) in
production: the GEM, designed and built by Andre Demestre
(Andre tragically died testing the prototype, may he RIP).
I've only seen pictures and read specs, but IMO the GEM
could be the best of the lot (when someone builds it).
The configuration is unique, and exactly what I would want
in a self-launcher: side-by-side seating, and low-profile
retractable tri-cycle landing gear.
Power configuration is similar to other self-launchers, with
retractable propeller, but with a much larger engine--a tubro-
charged Rotax 914. The GEM prototype had power and gliding
performace equivalent to the Stemme, and weighed 100 kgs less.
The other interesting thing about the GEM is its potential as
a (non-powered) three-seater. With the 2-32 being the only
three-person ship around, there should be great interest
in a new three-seat HP composite ship for commercial ride
operations. Two full-size seats up front, with the pilot
behind would be an ideal configuration for a ride ship.
Just dreamin', for now.
jeff