TMG or not TMG?

[Pielander]

I need to revalidate my SEP PPL mid July, and I would like to use hours flown in a Grob 109B to renew by experience, although I do not have a TMG rating.

Firstly, is a Grob 109B with pax and fuel (adding up to more than 850kg) even classed as a 'touring motor glider'? The weight limit for a TMG is supposed to be 850kg, so I would argue that a 'fully laden' 109 is single engine piston aircraft. The trouble is, I'm not sure whether the CAA would agree.

Secondly, I suppose I could go and get a TMG rating. I have heard rumours that given x number of hours on motorgliders (around 70), the CAA will just give out a TMG rating in exchange for the appropriate fee. The snag is that the nice young lady at FCL was not so convinced that this could be done, and she seemed to think I would need to do a TMG skill test before I could count the hours in the 109. Of course, if I'm going to do a skill test, then I don't need the hours do I? (Thus defeating the object of getting the damn thing in the first place!) :rolleyes:

Does anybody have any experience with this kind of thing?

Pie

[GliderGuider]

For info on getting/maintaining a TMG rating, have a look at the LASORS documents on the CAA website at:

http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/licensing/fcl/document.asp?groupid=292

I'm pretty sure that a Grob 109 is a TMG. A few years ago, the CAA sent me a list of TMG's and the Grob 109/109B was there. The list was actually an extract from JAR FCL-1 but looking at it now, it has changed. The basic definition of a TMG is:

"A motor glider having a certificate of
airworthiness issued or accepted by a JAA
Member State having an integrally mounted, nonretractable
engine and a non-retractable propeller.

JAR FCL-1 can be found at:
http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jarsec1.html

Hope this helps
Regards
G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Is it a G109b, or is it a Vigilant T1?

G

[Pielander]

Genghis

It is the latter - I am a law abiding citizen! I never knew it was classed as a different type. I actually thought the nice lady at the CAA was going to sent the PPL Police round when I told her I had been flying a motorglider P1 without a SLMG stamp in my log book. I reckon I had to do some pretty fast talking to keep my licence at all!

GliderGuider

Thanks for the links. When my 11 megs :eek: of Jar 23 have finished downloading, I will let you know my conclusion.

Pie

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'll let you into a secret old chap, the Vigilant T1 was the first full aircraft type I certified - obviously for the RAF / HQAC for whom I sort of worked at the time. So, I have a bit of a soft spot for it (even if it is totally the wrong aeroplane for what the AC use it for).

The civil definiiton of a TMG/SLMG includes certain performance / weight issues. One of those is that the MTOW mustn't exceed 850kg. The MTOW for the Vigilant T1 is 908kg, it also has a different instrument fit, a few subtle mods here and there and it's own military operators manual. We certified it against a combination of JAR-22 (the civil motorglider rules) and Def.Stan 00-970 (the military fixed wing rules). Because it was of no interest to us, we never investigated to find out whether it met the civil SLMG/TMG definition, we just wanted to know whether it was safe for use by Air Cadets.

So, in my opinion at-least and I'd be more than happy to backup this statement to the CAA, the Vigilant T1 is an aeroplane and should be logged as such in a CIVIL logbook, and not a motorglider. This isn't all that odd, civil aviation is full of these subtly destinctions - there are other aircraft that are patently SLMG to the untrained eye, which on the paperwork are either light aircraft or microlights.

So, you should (again in my opinion) be logging in your civil logbook all flying as being in a Vigilant T1 NOT A G109b and listing it under SEP (or whatever your particular column heading is).

To give you another instance of this sort of thing, there are a few other types out there - obvious examples are the Minimax, Rans S6, Shadow, Jabiru which with subtle variations of powerplant, wingtip and fuel tank can be either a light aircraft or a microlight - and there are many pilots happily and safely flying one of these who don't have the license or rating to fly a near identical aircraft that happens to have a slightly different wingloading or stall speed.

Finally, GG said "A motor glider having a certificate of
airworthiness issued or accepted by a JAA Member State having an integrally mounted, nonretractable engine and a non-retractable propeller". The Vigilant doesn't have a CofA as defined in the Chicago Convention, it is flying under military regulations called something similar, but actually quite different.

G

[StrateandLevel]

The Vigilant was considered as a Group A aircraft untill JAR-FCL was introduced in July 99. Unfortunately, it then became a TMG under the JAA definitions.

Your best bet is to get the TMG rating added to your licence (grandfather rights if you have 75 hours on them) or by test if you don't.

Then if both your SEP and TMG are valid, you can revalidate by using either in the future.

[Genghis the Engineer]

S&L, given that the Vigilant hasn't been shown to meet the JAR definition of a motorglider, isn't issued with an ICAO compliance CofA as a motorglider, and isn't listed anywhere in LASORS against motorglider requirements - from where do you glean this piece of information?

G

[NinjaBill]

So, I have a bit of a soft spot for it (even if it is totally the wrong aeroplane for what the AC use it for).

Hi there,

I currently fly the Vigilat for the aircadets out of RAF Topcliffe

I Just wondering why you should say that this aircraft is unsuitable for its current use?

NB

[NavEx]

Genghis, interested on your Viggie comments. I'm an ex Viggie driver, the CAA used to accept the Viggie as a SEP as it was over the weight limit. Since JAR came in and the new TMG definition they (FCL) have classed it as such. I spoke to them last year and recived a written reply quoting the criteria for TMGs. They will no longer accept Viggie hours as SEP. A lot of current/ex Viggie drivers have now lost chance to use those hours. If you are able to get a definite written answer classing it as SEP I'd very much like a copy

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well answering the first question first. Don't get me wrong it's a great fun machine to fly, but it's basically a touring aeroplane with ergonomics and powerplant designed for that. The AC use it as an ab-initio trainer. In that it has several major deficiencies...

- It needs long runways and has a poor rate of climb, thus restricting airfields that can be used and making circuits very slow.
- The engine over-cools at idle and takes a long time to warm up again, so time on the ground on a landing /backtrack/take-off can be quite significant.
- Engine reliability is poor, causing the AC to prohibit solo student flying (or at least they had for at-least 5 years after we certified it - is that still the case?) which is a bit of a disadvantage in a basic trainer.
- The fragile powerplant needs far too many maintenance man hours per flying hour thus eating up the AC's budget that should be spent on other things.
- It's too expensive, 2-3 times as many simpler draggier aircraft could have been bought for the money - and worldwide there are hundreds of cheap basic but sufficiently capable aeroplanes to choose from. Wouldn't look as pretty, but would probably get far more cadets up for the money. (And yes, HQAC would have had to re-write the venerable motorglider syllabus for something else, but that's hardly the end of the world). As an example take a look at what the Indian National Cadet Corps are using.

And please don't blame me for any of this - HQAC decided upon the aircraft, THEN presented it to BDN and asked us to certify it. (I've also wondered why for such a large buy there was no attempt to procure inside the UK also).


Navex, if you'd like to dig out the criteria you were given making the Vigilant a TMG and either post it here or Email it to me I'll gladly do my best to shoot it down in flames as a piece of public service.

G

[StrateandLevel]

Genhis

The JAR-FCL definition of a TMG is: A motor glider having a C of A issued and accepted by a JAA Member State having an integrally mounted, non retractable engine and a non retractible propellor. It shall be capable of taking off under its own power according to its flight manual.

Maybe the Vigilant doesn't have a C of A, but it is accepted by the UK, a JAA State, as a TMG.

[NinjaBill]

Hi there Ghengis,

thanks for your answer,

with regards to your question re first solos, they have now sorted this problem out, and we are able to send first solos.

I've only been flying them for 2 and a half months, so Im not very experienced in them, but they are definately a nice aircraft to fly, and do fly like the viking gliders that I am used to when you switch the engine off.

NB

[tmmorris]

I'd be very interested in your advice - perhaps you could PM me - as I am a newly recruited VR(T) officer (CCF) contemplating pursuing becoming a gliding instructor for the local VGS, which is using Vigilants. Is this worth doing? It does look as though I would have to get a TMG rating so I can log the time, but it might be worth the hassle.

Tim

[Genghis the Engineer]

S&L, sorry but I can't agree with you - I don't think the facts that the aircraft doesn't have a CofA, and doesn't comply with the civil definition of a motorglider are irrelevant. Also, the RAF and CAA may both be in the UK, but only the latter subscribes to JAA, not the former (and having worked closely alongside both, take it from me, they don't talk to each other much). Presented to CAA in those terms, particularly the weight issue, I don't think that they'll have any choice but to regard it as an SEP. People who are incorrectly logging the type as a G109b are shooting themselves in the foot - it is a derivative of the 109 with a different designation. You wouldn't log a Bulldog T1 as a Beagle Pup would you?

TMM - of course you can log it if you are flying the aircraft legitimately under military rules. What we're all disagreeing about is under what column in a civil logbook you can log it, not whether you can do so at-all which is a given. You only need a civil TMG rating to fly a civil TMG, not to log your experience flying a military aircraft however designated.

G

[davidhenson]

There are an awful lot of Vigilant drivers, past and present who would be very interested in this topic.

I agree there are many more suitable aircraft than the Vigilant. However, it has to be put into the context of what the choice was at the time and the politics - background of the VGS's is Gliding.

Will you approach the CAA? If you get the present ruling overturned, there will be a lot of happy people out there.

If not would you be prepared to support this move?

David

[Genghis the Engineer]

Assuming that's addressed to me.

(1) No, I can't really make an approach to CAA myself since it's not personally my problem.

(2) Yes, I would be more than happy to support and back up anybody else's approach since I'm in a position to do so. The only price on my help would be a photocopy of the current Vigilant T1 operators manual since I didn't keep a copy when I left Boscombe Down and would like to check a couple of facts in the current operating data to make sure I don't get any of my technical points wrong.

- If anybody is planning to make an approach to CAA drop me an Email and we can have a chat about how to do it. In the current environment at CAA/PLD with the departure of a certain unpopular retired AVM I've no doubt you'll get a fair hearing.

G

[WestWind1950]

In my opinion, a Grob 109 can only be a TMG = Touring Motor Glider. What SEP can have it's motor turned off and soar like a glider? not many to be sure! I think the definition should depend on that more then on the weight. We just now introduced FCL here in Germany on May 1st (what confusion!!) so I don't know all the regs by heart, but for me, a G 109 is definitely a TMG and nothing else!
The biggest problem, and it would be interesting for me to know how other FCL countries solve it, is that you can not do basic beginner training on a TMG (ridiculous!). You must either get the glider or SEP licence first. So, what does a poor guy or gal do, that would like to only fly TMG's and has no interest in gliders and no possibility to train on planes < 750 kg? :confused: how do you all solve this?

thanks for any replies....

WestWind1950

P.S. I wish we hadn't introduced JAR-FCL :{

[flight_for_life]

Genghis and all,

Have been trudging through your many exchanges just now - from the point of view of someone new to this thread, every single reply seems to have its own merits which is bl**dy annoying.

I too am in the sticky situation. Currently a Vig T MK1 driver with well over 100 hours, 60+ of which as captain/P1. I am now beginning on the extremely long and winding road to ATPL, starting with PPL.

After speaking to three separate persons in Flight Crew Licencing at the CAA (twice by phone, once yesterday in person at CAA House, Gatwick) I have had three completely different answers which, along with LASORs, has left me not knowing @rse from elbow. :ugh:

1st opinion: as per LASORs, and as you have bags of experience flying SLMG, you can count 10% (max 10 hours) of your total P1 hours towards your PPL.

2nd opinion: as per LASORs, and as you have bags of experience flying TMG, you can count ALL your hours, thereby only requiring the PPL exams, skills tests, and "discretionary" training to gain your PPL(A) with TMG rating. This opinion is supported by a friend who took the same route several years ago and now flies big jets - at the time he obtained a letter from the almighty CAA declaring that all his hours on Vig T Mk1 counted as if he'd been flying a Warrior. I take it from following this thread that this has now been overturned.

3rd opinion: although your hours on Vigilant count as TMG time (and therefore logbook hours), they do not count towards your PPL as per Grob 109 and you can therefore only count 10% (max 10 hours) of your logged P1 time towards your PPL training. HOWEVER, once you have a PPL, all your hours on Vig count as logged time thereby boosting your PPL hours. By this route, I could therefore start my PPL with 6 hours (10% of 60 hours) and finish it with near enough 150 hours. Bizarre!!!

Personally I think the 3rd opinion is most likely to take effect because as any VGS Vig pilot will know, gliding range can be one hell of a constraint - I've only ever done one nav-ex (cross-country in civvie terms) and rarely been outside of 15 nm from the airfield - how can anyone award a PPL to this kind of experience? Furthermore, military RT is non-existent compared to civvie formalities. I've never done a PFL (practice forced landing), spin awareness, got no formal experience of classified airspace, never even considered MATZ penetration ... the list goes on. And I'd like to see a PA-28 do a turnback EFATO at 500ft and still have room to level the wings ;)

I do not intend to get involved in the argument as to whether the Vigilant is a Grob 109 and therefore whether it is a TMG or an SLMG (although I have to admit guys, how would any of you other VGS Vig drivers certify exactly how many hours you have completed with the engine on 100% of the time... I personally have spent many a sortie - as captain and P2 - out and about with the engine shut down for a third or more of the time... can we realistically expect the CAA to grant a licence based on our RAF Form XXXX (logbooks) because this gives naff-all definition between how many powered/gliding hours we have completed. All they can determine from these hours is that a certain proportion of them are guaranteed engine-on hours (I haven't yet seen a Vigilant launched with the engine off). Perhaps if we submitted the authorisation forms (which declare which sorties included engine-off time)... but that would be over the top surely.

But I would be very interested to hear if any of you have reached an outcome with your investigations with the CAA as to just what hours on Vigilant T1 actually count for - and if you have not done so yet, I would be more than willing to do what I could to help us all reach a successful conclusion on the matter. After all, the Vigilant/Grob 109 might have one wheel in the wrong place to pass for a PA-28/C150 but it's still an aeroplane and I don't see why we shouldn't count our valuable hours on type in the same way as any student learning on these types.

FFL

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well, for your information, behind the scenes I've been putting together - with the aid of information furnished by two of the posters to this thread - a formal case. It all reads at my pompous best, which CAA generally like. It's just gone in the post to davidhenson, so next stage is for him to present it to Gatwick and see what response he gets.

G


Main text of the letter...


Description of the aircraft

The Vigilant T1 is a single engine side-by-side all-composite tractor monoplane. It is fitted with a single air cooled engine derived from a VW automotive engine, to which is fitted a 2-position Hoffman 2-blade 1.6m diameter variable pitch propeller.

The aircraft is derived from the Grob G109b which is eligible for issue of an ICAO compliant certificate of airworthiness as a touring motor glider. However, the aircraft is modified from the G109b in the following ways:-

- Provision of personal parachutes as standard equipment
- Increase in MAUM from 850kg to 908kg.
- Different instrumentation.
- Different operating limitations.
The eligibility of the Vigilant T1 for issue of a CofA as a powered sailplane

There is only one standard used within JAA states for issue of a CofA to a glider or motorglider. That document is JAR-22 which at part 22.1 Applicability includes the following definition at 22.1(a)(2)…

Single engined (spark or compression ignition) powered sailplanes the design value W/b² (weight to span²) of which is not greater than 3 (W[kg],b[m]) and the maximum weight of which does not exceed 850kg.

Whilst it may be shown that the Vigilant meets the W/b² requirement, the MAUM at 908kg exceeds the 850kg limit for certification as a powered sailplane.

The aircraft would therefore not be eligible for issue of a CofA as a powered sailplane under current rules as accepted by JAR.

Considering the Vigilant T1 as a Touring Motor Glider (TMG) or SLS (Self Launching Sailplane)

The Vigilant T Mk.1 does not have any mechanism to retract the engine and/or propeller when not in use (although it can be feathered). This is an essential pre-requisite of an SLS, therefore the Vigilant T Mk.1 does not fit into this category.

It is a requirement to be classified as a Touring Motor Glider (TMG) that an aircraft can take-off unassisted. This is defined in JAR 22.51 as being able to attain a height of 15m in no more than 500m when taking off from a dry, level, hard surface. This distance, as given in the operating data for the Vigilant T Mk.1 [ ] is 655m. Therefore within the definition accepted within JAR regulations the aircraft is incapable of taking-off unassisted. It should be explained that this was understood and accepted by the Air Cadets organisation since it operates from military airfields with sufficiently long runways that this does not create an unacceptable hazard.

Therefore, the Vigilant T Mk.1, although safe in operation as a military training aircraft does not meet the safety (field performance) standards required of an aircraft which might be used as a civil motor glider.

Justification of the Vigilant T Mk.1 as a Single Engined Piston Aeroplane

It is, as discussed above, my opinion that hours logged flying a Vigilant T Mk.1 cannot be considered to be either Self Launching Sailplane (SLS) or Touring Motor Glider (TMG) for the following reasons:-

- The MAUM is too great for eligibility under JAR-22, which is the basis for issue within JAA states of an ICAO compliant CofA as a powered sailplane.
- Neither engine nor propeller retract, therefore the aircraft cannot be considered to fall into the SLS class.
- The aircraft’s take-off performance is too great for it to be considered able to take-off under it’s own power, as defined in JAR-22.

Nonetheless, it is undeniable that the aircraft is a single piston-engined fixed-wing aeroplane in which flying is carried out, legally, in the United Kingdom. The only other class of aircraft overlapping with SEP is microlight, which permits only an MTOM up to 450kg for landplanes and is therefore clearly unsuitable. It is therefore my recommendation that pilots legally flying this aircraft, under supervision of RAF HQ Air Cadets should be permitted to log hours flown in this class of aircraft in the “single engine piston” class.

I would also like to note that the aircraft has a tailwheel (rather than tricycle) configuration, and a pilot controlled 2-position variable pitch propeller. There is therefore a strong case for suggesting that any pilot qualified by the Air Cadets to fly as pilot in command of a Vigilant T Mk.1 may also be considered to have completed differences training in tailwheel configuration aircraft and in the use of variable pitch propellers – it is my recommendation that they should be credited with this.

[Stan Evil]

Genghis

You've quoted JAR 22.1(a)(2) but you've ignored the alternative definition in 22.1(a)(3) which states:

'Sailplanes and powered sailplanes the number of occupants of which does not exceed two'

22.1(a)(1), (2) and (3) are ORs not ANDs.

So the Vigilant can fall under JAR-22 and so is a powered sailplane and therefore, I guess, a TMG.

Incidentally, I've not found a definition of a TMG except for the one in JAR-FCL 1.001 which really doesn't help as it refers to them being a sub-set of 'motor gliders' but doesn't define a motor glider! Another conundrum from this definition is that it starts '. . . having a certificate of airworthiness . . .' which of course the Vigilant doesn't.

Any thoughts??

[Genghis the Engineer]

Negative

Whilst 22.1(a)(1) and (2) are "or", 22.1(a)(2) and (3) are connected by an "and".

Interestingly if you read the syntax carefully you could presumably have a 4 seat glider quite legally. However, speaking for myself, I don't intend going there this week, I've got another battle to fight with FCL on behalf of one of my TPs they won't issue a rating to, so I'd best not be too awkward this month.


I don't think anybody can find a requirement for TMG (that's half the problem), the basic thrust of my argument is that the aircraft as it is flown would be ineligible for issue of a civil CofA as a motorglider, therefore can't be regarded as one for the purpose or logging hours.

It really would be more sensible if, like for gliders and microlights, light (and less light) aeroplanes had co-incident aircraft definitions and licensing definitions. Then again, since the military always have the right to do their own thing anyway, that probably wouldn't have helped in this instance anyway.

We shall see if our friends at Gatwick are convinced.

G