2. 6.10 Action in the event of a casualty or serious accident
The organiser shall follow the procedures outlined in the FAI document
(available from the FAI website) "Guidelines in the Event of a Casualty or
Serious Accident at FAI Airsports Events".
Unfortunately when I went to look for this document, it was no
longer there. John Aldridge is trying to track it down now.
The organisers shall allocate numbers or letters to each competing
glider which shall be displayed on the glider. This will normally be on the
underside of the right wingtip with the top of the numbers or letters towards
the leading edge, and may also be on the pilot's helmet or on other equipment.
Numbers may be additionally required on top of the wing.
We haven't put numbers on gliders for years now. No one wants to
do this. They are just requiring it so that they can penalize us.
There are numerous other changes including a complete reformatting of the local
regulations, something that I have urged. More later.
The Hang Glider Tiles Poster is made out of 1700 photos of hang gliding. These
pictures are collected over the past two years. Most of the pictures are send by
fellow hang gliders, and they are from all over the world. You can also find
pictures of the latest World Championship in Australia! The sale of this unique
Hang glider Tiles A1 poster (60x85 cm) starts at the Hang glider event in
Wageningen on January 29. After this event the poster will be available.
There is no doubt that the existing fleet of tugs, trainers and
fat ultralights can be grandfathered in as E-LSA. That's 50% of what this whole
three year transition time is about. The other 50% is getting all the ASTM
standards in place for the SLSA craft, getting us all transitioned as pilots,
getting the infrastructure in place to make Sport Pilot work smoothly (as it now
stands, there are about seven weight shift DPE's in the whole country, and not
many more SPI's--which we need to get the endorsement to get our check ride from
the DPE--I'm not grandfathered since I soloed and became a member of EAA AFTER
Jan. 2004).
So the problem as I understand it is, there is NO WAY any of us can grandfather
our current aircraft in as S-LSA. And even if we did, the rigidity re. the
aircraft will make it difficult to use them--much easier for you for instance
with a "fixed-wing" dragonfly, but with a trike, you should be able to change
out wings, once the S-LSA trikes come out, you won't be able to do that since
the aircraft must be kept AS certified.
The whole S-LSA idea is to now be able to purchase pre-manufactured aircraft
which have been built according to the ASTM consensus standards. Each
manufacturer has to have ONE aircraft built and certified "as is." Then all the
other aircraft manufactured after that will be carbon copies of that one
certified craft.
S-LSA's have the same maintenance requirements as an E-LSA used for "hire,"
except that both the 100 hour and annual inspections must be done by an A&P or a
Light Sport Maintenance Repairman. And any repairs done to the aircraft must be
in compliance with that aircraft's certification. Aside from that, the S-LSA's
will also cost several thousand dollars more than the same aircraft did as a
pre-SLSA craft (the fleet we're grandfathering in) since after 2008, SLSA will
be the only game in town, and if anyone wants to get into light sport aviation,
they will only have the choice of purchasing an SLSA.
If we can't grandfather our current fleet in as SLSA, then after 2010 (the
extended deadline for using ELSA for "hire") our current fleet becomes either
lawn chair material, or recreational aircraft which we can fly for ourselves,
but cannot use for towing, etc.
And that's where the frustration comes from for those of us who have invested
time and money into these "operations"--whether a larger scale operation like
yours, or a couple guys who own a trike like ours. All the money, time and
effort we've put in becomes useless after 2010. Either we suck it up and go
spend thousands more on a fleet of SLSA aircraft, or we throw in the towel, or
we operate "under the radar." I know our guys are tempted to do the latter,
since we tow out of an airstrip that's private and somewhat secluded (except for
the highway we tend to turn over), but then we incur a new sort of liability as
well as set ourselves up for fines and penalties if anything were to happen and
the FAA show up on our doorstep.
Now add to that the new requirement that all who are acting as a tug pilot
acquire their Private Pilot's License. That's another $6-7000 expense that most
of us can't afford and don't really WANT to afford. I could care less about
becoming a GA pilot. I love flying my hang glider and my trike, I have no
interest in piloting a spam can. And yet, if USHGA isn't successful in getting
the rules amended, I am going to have no choice. Fortunately--as I already
mentioned--as a weight shift pilot, I can get my private in the weight shift
class. But even that isn't worth the trouble if indeed we are required to use
only SLSA aircraft (I won't be investing the money to buy a new aircraft for
towing).
I don't know if any of this is helpful, but it's the "rule" as I understand it.
Please let me know what you hear from the Florida flight park operatorsa nd I'll
keep you informed if I hear anything different. My hangar mate--and the guy who
brokered the deal for us on the trike so we COULD tow (a long-time hang glider
pilot turned weight shift CFI who wanted tug pilots at his disposal) is one of
the DPE's. I will try to ask him what he knows when he gets back from this month
training in AZ.
I'm going to forward this to Eric Thorstenson, who is part owner/operator of a
dragonfly operation in WA, and with whom I was talking about some of this
material just the other day.
Yes, that good clarification of the problems. We have a similar
issue with the Dragonfly, as we often need to change propellers, engines, etc.,
in and out, and sometimes from one plane to another, and do other work on the
plane, which makes E-SLA much more appealing and practical.
The issue of towing with an E-SLA after 2010 is a concern. I haven't seen
that specific wording anywhere (which doesn't mean its not there someplace).
I've seen the wording about training--not sure about "for hire." If the tug
can't be used for towing for hire after 2010, perhaps it can still be used for
towing for personal or club use. We've been towing as a club for almost 10
years, now.
I don't recommend trying to stay under the radar with the FAA. We've been
formally inspected twice. Different FSDOs often interpret rules differently.
Fortunately for us, our FSDO felt that use of the 2 seat trainer ultralight
(fat) dragonfly for towing was acceptable, since the mission of our club is
training, instruction, and safety (we consider all our tandem and solo flights
to be instructional flights), and because we are a non-profit club. Actually, we
made sure to be very up-to-date on the regs before they came, and helped to
educate them about ultralight towing, and the regs and exemptions.
Ultralight towing is so oddball for them, that it is not surprising that they
did not know much about it. Actually, after all our harping about safety, they
asked me to become a safety counselor for the FSDO's Aviation Safety Counselor
program. Through that program, I've gotten to know the local inspectors
personally, which has been extremely beneficial, both practically and
politically.
I do know that the FAA is going to take sport pilot issues more seriously, and
look closer at operations towing with SLAs. I'll keep you posted. Thanks, Tracy.
The concern that Tracy and I have been addressing is an
understanding that, after Jan or 2010, E-LSA may no longer be used for
aerotowing operations. The aerotowing flight parks and operations in the USA are
almost uniformly using aircraft that will be grandfathered in as ELSA and the
concern is that if ELSA may no longer be used after Jan of 2010, then flight
parks and other operations will have to find the funds to replace their existing
fleet of tug aircraft, or--as will be the case with smaller groups doing
towing--cease operations.
A perusal of the relevant FAR's yields the following:
91. 319 "Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating Limitations"
(e) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an experimental certificate
under §21.191(i) of this chapter for compensation or hire, except a person may
operate an aircraft issued an experimental certificate under §21.191(i)(1) for
compensation or hire to—
(1) Tow a glider that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle
in accordance with §91.309; or
(2) Conduct flight training in an aircraft which that person provides prior to
January 31, 2010.
And
(g) No person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental certificate under
§21.191(i)(1) of this chapter to tow a glider that is a light-sport aircraft or
unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or to conduct flight
training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides
unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has—
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a
maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated
repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the
aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA; or
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in
accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
According to (e)(2) above, only ELSA used for flight training fall under the
January 2010 timeline for use in that capacity. There is no apparent
corresponding ruling regarding ELSA used for towing. Thus, if I am reading the
FAR's correctly, we will be able to continue to use the current fleet of light
sport "tugs" after January 2010.
However, we cannot use these tugs without having transitioned them to ELSA and
receiving an airworthiness certificate (obviously), or without having 100 hour
inspections done by an A&P or a Light Sport repairman with a maintenance rating.
My guess would be that if we have a light sport repairman inspection certificate
we can still do our own annual inspections.
The other matter that those of us conducting aerotowing operations must address
is FAR 61.69. § 61.69 Glider and unpowered ultralight vehicle towing: Experience
and training requirements.
(a) No person may act as pilot in command for towing a glider or unpowered
ultralight vehicle unless that person—
(1) Holds at least a private pilot certificate with a category rating for
powered aircraft;
(2) Has logged at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the aircraft
category, class and type, if required, that the pilot is using to tow a glider
or unpowered ultralight vehicle;
There is more to 61.69...but the most relevant issue I want to raise is that of
(a)(1). I believe that most of our tow operations are already working under the
rubric of paragraph (2) and doing the training required. And currently,
ultralight aerotow operations are operated under an exemption (#4144) granted to
USHGA which allows us to act as tug pilots without the requirement of a private
pilots license (a copy of which those of us acting as tug pilots are to carry on
the aircraft anytime we are towing). The 100 hour requirement may be used in
place of the Private Pilots License requirement according to USHGA 104.11.01.
Will this exemption still be in place following the full implementation of
Sport Pilot? Or will those of us who are towing now be required to receive a PPL
for towing? I believe this latter needs further comment from USHGA or the
FAA...preferably USHGA at this point because it's been my understanding that
they are still petitioning the FAA for a change or continued exemption to
61.69(a)(1). The safety record of aerotowing operations involving ultralights
and hang gliders is very good...and makes one wonder if the FAA will recognise
that safety record and continue to exempt us from the PPL requirement, or not.
It is not my understanding that the current fleet of Dragon Flies,
or towing vehicles that will eventually need to be certificated as ELSA, will
never become obsolete for use for towing, unless we determine their
obsolescence. It is my understanding that we can continue to use the towing
vehicles that are certificated as ELSA indefinitely. FAA clearly understood that
as an industry or a fragile segment of sport aviation, we could not afford to
replace the existing fleet of tug aircraft.
I know I'm right but let's wait for Bill to back me up. I will be calling the
Sport Pilot office next week again and I can discuss this email with them but
I'm quite sure we have permission to use the tugs indefinitely -- but they do
have to become certificated as ELSA and they do need to be maintained properly
for use for non-commercial and commercial towing ops.
I don't see where FAA has made an effort to differentiate between
commercial HG and non-commercial HG aerotow operations for sport pilot.
I will be talking to Larry Clymer next week. Larry is the acting manager of the
sport pilot office in OKC. I can rely on information from our emails to support
the discussion. I will report back to you as soon as I touch base with him.
But it is my opinion that FAA decided to require tug pilots to obtain a PPL for
towing a hang glider because they didn't want to differentiate between
commercial and non-commercial towing ops for non-powered ultralights. FAA didn't
penalize USHGA with a requirement for a CL for compensated towing but they also
didn't grant us the permission to use a sport pilot license for towing either. I
remember FAA commenting to Bill, Mike Meier and I, that hang glider towing was a
"sufficiently complex" process to justify the PPL requirement. Sue Gardner did
evaluate the hang glider towing process and I'm sure we all agree that it is a
complex process. I vividly remember her saying now that it is the complexity of
the process that caused them to consider a PPL as the baseline for towing.
Last I spoke with Larry Clymer, he advised USHGA to apply for an exemption to
91.315G so that a sport pilot can tow a non-powered ultralight as long as they
are a current member of the USHGA with a USHGA-ATP rating. Bill Bryden initially
suggested that we include pilots who also meet the requirements of part 61.69
but Larry Clymer advised against this.
Larry also mentioned requesting an exemption to part 91.319G and finally, I
think he suggested adding part 61.113 G to the rule now so that a private pilot
may act as the pilot in command for compensation or hire for towing a
non-powered UL.
Larry planned to talk to Mike Brown, policymaker in DC, about the waiver to part
91.
This issue of compensation is definitely still on the table. I think we're
dealing with two issues right now: compensation and a waiver to the sport pilot
rule so that current USHGA members with a USHGA-ATP rating can tow a non-powered
ultralight. We haven't been able to wrap these two conversations into one yet.
I had asked Tracy Tillman the following:
Davis just copied me on another email thread regarding his concern that the
existing fleet of Dragon Flies, or fat UL's used for aerotowing hang gliders
will eventually become obsolete or illegal for use under the new rule. Bill
Bryden can back me up here but it is my understanding that the current fleet of
fat UL two vehicles, the ones manufactured before the rule was released in
September, 2004 have been grandfathered in for use as tow vehicles indefinitely.
The existing fleet will be required to be certificated as ELSA. They will
require the maintenance and inspection program you outlined in an email to the
board recently but they will not become illegal for use after January 2010. FAA
clearly understood that we can not afford to replace the existing fleet of tow
vehicles.
Doug and Group:
I clearly need assistance writing the exemption request to the sport pilot rule
once we get the green light from FAA policy makers in DC. Bill Bryden authored
previous exemption requests but he may not be in a position to actively
volunteer right now.
Tracy: Perhaps, you and I could work together on the exemption request, once we
determine exactly what we should include. We could run the request by Bill
before it's submitted.
In addition to submitting a request for an exemption to the sport pilot rule we
also need to address the fact that the towing exemption expires in October. We
should, at the very least, consider submitting a revised exemption request
asking FAA to amend the existing towing exemption with just one change: to
increase the weight of the tug from 540 pounds to 1232 pounds (to match the
weight guidelines under sport pilot) or to some such weight that is sufficient
enough to make the Dragon Flies legal for towing under the exemption. As it
stands today, the Dragon Flies are still classified as fat ultralights. We
haven't transitioned any of them to ELSA, for good reason, but we don't want to
be stuck operating in this "gray" area if we can help it.
The basis issue is that USHGA fears its members will vote to reject the
inclusion of powered harnesses. To avoid a membership vote, it claims the
Articles presently allow fuel flight and no amendment is required. As you
indicate, it asks an awkward question to avoid the real question. The real
question is, "Is fuel flight a stated purpose?" Obviously it isn't.
USHGA did the same thing with the paragliding merger. California law requires
member votes when non-profits merge. To avoid a vote, USHGA claimed it merely
purchased the assets of the American Paraglider Association and did not merge
with it. USHGA feared its hang gliding members would reject including
paragliders.
I prefer not to get further involved. Perhaps you could tell the angry Mr. Hurst
that including fuel flight without a vote amending the Articles invites an
expensive legal challenge.
The weather cast was for cu-nimbs and very good chance for rain. While it was
clear to the north in the morning there was a thick layer of clouds to the south
by the ranges, the Victorian Alps. The soundings (temperature trace taken at the
airport here), the models and the local forecasts all called for towering cu's
as soon as it got warm enough to start showers. The sailplane pilots were
restricted to the local area with no cross country allowed.
The winds were light on the ground and it was already hot and muggy with the
humidity here and in all the surrounding areas very high, like yesterday. There
was a trough just next to us, say thirty miles away just to make things more
interesting.
The safety committee kept holding us back, I guess waiting until it was too
late, then letting us fly. I don't quite get that. Finally at one o'clock we got
to set up. They sky was blue to the north, west and east, but small cu's were
just starting up. Many pilots were waiting to see what would happen and not
setting up.
The sky to the north, west and east began to fill up with towering cu's. I was
the first to setup and the first to get to launch at 1:50. The task has been set
to the south, a triangle that got us back in time to end the meet with some
dignity.
At 1,000' AGL I pinned off in the strong thermal which turned into 1,000 fpm up
to 7,000'. There was a large black cloud now right above me and right over the
air field. I pulled out of the thermal 1,000' below the cloud just because the
threat of cu-nimbs seemed too great and I wanted to be able to stay near the
edge of the cloud.
My high risk strategy was to go as early as possible and count on the fact that
the task would be stopped while I was on course. It was clear that there were
heavy cu-nimbs by the first and second turnpoint. I figured that if I got going
early I could be furthest out on the course when the task was stopped.
I headed over for the start circle to the southwest where there were plenty of
black clouds. To the south of the start circle it was cloudless and blue. To the
southeast, shaded for 20 kilometers by thick cu's.
Flying under the black clouds did not produce much lift in the start circle, and
I had to go back north to find 200 fpm under other black clouds over the shaded
earth to get back to almost 7,000, still a good ways from cloud base. With a
couple of minutes to go before the first start clock I decided to head south to
get on course and see what I could find before the cu-nimbs near me took over
and the rain started falling.
As soon as the lift quit I was falling like a rock under dark clouds and over
shaded ground. The sun-lit ground was 10 kilometers away and I wouldn't make it
at 600 fpm down. I made a sharp turn to the south east to head for some
sun-light over Cobram, but it didn't produce any lift. The clouds had shaded the
ground and stopped the lift.
I kept gliding for sunny areas but didn't find any lift and landed in soft
conditons in a nice green open large field with an open gate.
Chris Smith got up like I did near the air field to 7,000', and headed for the
start circle. He didn't find any lift there either. With pilots landing right
and left in the start circle and the wind changing around to the south and
blowing hard, he decided to come back to the air field and land.
Dave Seib said he almost killed himself on landing coming in in a gust front. He
got high at the air field went over to the start circle and didn't get high
again. Dave stated that Jonny had a hard landing by the first turnpoint and that
the wind switched from 15-20 km/h out of the southwest to 15-20 km/h out of the
east in five minutes there.
Kraig Coomber made goal. Phil Schroder said that after he made the first
turnpoint, there was a cu-nimb in front of him (as we could all see from near
the start point).
Kraig Coomber was the only one to make goal on the last day. Andreas Olson and
Attila got close. Jonny won the meet, with Balazs second and Kraig Coomber
third.
Subscribing and Unsubscribing to the e-mail version
You are in charge of your e-mail subscription to the Oz Report. If you wish to unsubscribe or subscribe, click: Subscribe.
Credits
Gerry makes the Oz Report portal much smarter. He is a web consultant and a PHP expert. He's the brains behind the Oz Report, so contact him for PHP programming services. David Glover heads up the Oz Report Radio
The Oz Report, a near-daily, world wide hang gliding news ezine, with reports on competitions, pilot rankings, political issues, fly-ins, the latest technology, ultralight sailplanes, reader feedback and anything else from within the global HG community worthy of coverage. Hang gliding, paragliding, hang gliders, paragliders, aerotowing, hang glide, paraglide, platform towing, competitions, fly-ins. Hang gliding and paragliding news from around the world, by Davis Straub.
