Can a Sport Pilot get a Glider cert and then a Commercial Glider cert without medicals?

What’s it take to get a self launch endorsement?
61.31 (j) Additional training required for operating a glider.

(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a glider—
(iii) Using self-launch procedures, unless that person has satisfactorily accomplished ground and flight training on self-launch procedures and operations, and has received an endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies in that pilot’s logbook that the pilot has been found proficient in self-launch procedures and operations.
 
Sure, but the pilot in question (Salty) already had an ASEL rating, so he already knew about engine emergency procedures, landing at controlled fields, propeller concerns, etc., etc.
A proper motor Glider endorsement, which to be fair I have not yet done my self but I fly and talk with a lot motor glider pilots and instructors should cover things that neither a glider rating or Airplane rating cover.

Unfortunately the Sinus isn’t a very good transition trainer as it is much like an airplane. I believe it does have feathering proper, a water cooled engine. And possibly some in flight starting procedures. Which should definitely cover minimum altitudes for starting, and minimum alititude to continue trying to start. Any procedures required if it doesn’t start.

Other motor gliders might cover the following
Starting a cold soaked engine.
Retractable engines
Stopping and positioning the propeller.
Shut down and cooling procedures before retracting engine.
emergency procedures, like engine failure on take off.
At some altitude it may be better to retract/stow the engine,
Battery Management , don’t want a dead battery when you go to restart




There is probably more I am not aware of or thinking about at the moment.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Thanks. I'm still working on the terminology. What's the difference in this case? What am I mixing up?
Any flying device is an aircraft. Airplanes, gliders, helicopters, uavs, balloons, ultralights, model rockets, etc. are all different types of aircraft.
 
Perhaps you missed the part where I was already rated to fly ASEL? It was less than an hour of flying.
You're right, I missed that part. I suppose a single flight might be doable with you getting training in airborne shutdown and restart procedures and doing some takeoffs and practicing a few landings with power and without.
 
On the bright side if you have a self launch glider with a tailwheel, you don't need a tailwheel endorsement.
 
The Pipistrel Sinus is a light sport glider according to the FAA. "Glider" being the operative word.
So getting sport license, plus glider endorsement.
 
The Pipistrel Sinus is a light sport glider according to the FAA. "Glider" being the operative word.
So getting sport license, plus glider endorsement.
No advantage to a S.P. with a glider endorsement and no reason to not get a private glider ticket.
 
No advantage to a S.P. with a glider endorsement and no reason to not get a private glider ticket.
If one goes the SP route, they can get the SP ticket in a more available airplane, then get the glider endorsement, never needing a medical. Yes, you don't need a medical for a PP-glider, but if you start in a powered plane as a PP candidate you need a medical to solo.

Also SP "checkrides" and endorsements are given by CFIs (a different CFI than your regular instructor), not a DPE... have you seen the wait (and cost!) for DPEs lately?
 
Also SP "checkrides" and endorsements are given by CFIs (a different CFI than your regular instructor), not a DPE

True for endorsements but not the initial checkride. The checkride is given by a DPE, though it can be a SP-only DPE.
 
Unless you already have a sport pilot certificate.
And maybe unless you've been flying for decades.

Or unless you got a PPL when you were in ROTC in the 70's.

Or unless you were trained in the military.

Or unless this or unless that ... how many other minor and irrelevant exceptions can y'all think up?

It's sad to see how many times people keep looping around saying, "unless you have ..." when the OP says specifically STARTING FROM NOTHING and the whole point of this post was because they (and many future readers) are wondering if there are meaningful any DIFFERENCES in STARTING (from NOTHING) as a GLIDER PILOT or as a SPORT PILOT that lead to the ability to fly the same aircraft that's rated as a MOTOR GLIDER.

Not to mention how there are so many posts that keep coming back to the PPL as a STARTING point, which is also NOT NOTHING, and also NOT EXEMPT FROM A MEDICAL the way both Glider and SP certs are -- as stated in the OP as well.

STARTING FROM NOTHING means ... NO PPL, NO SP, NO GLIDER, NO training or hours at all. NOTHING. Nada.

It's a totally LEGITIMATE QUESTION that is rarely discussed, and perhaps should be. I mean ... how many ground schools and online schools even MENTION about GLIDERS or SPORT PILOT certs as options? Given that the failure rates of PPL students are so frigging high, it might behoove them to CONSIDER these options just to keep people coming back without thinking they're a failure and have no future as aviators!
 
Just wanted to clear up some confusion I see about Pipistrel.

From my experience:
The Alpha Trainer is generally registered as an aircraft and not as a glider.
You can register it as a glider when you buy it, Right Rudder aviation has/had one registered as this, but it doesn't make much sense given it's 15:1 glide ratio.

You can shut down the engine in flight in the Alpha Trainer regardless if it's registered as airplane or glider, but when registered as an aircraft you cannot install the feathering propeller.

When you buy a plane from Pipistrel you can choose if you want it registered as a glider or airplane. It, generally, cannot be changed latter.

Edit: Registration in this context means initial airworthiness certificate.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to clear up some confusion I see about Pipistrel.

From my experience:
The Alpha Trainer is generally registered as an aircraft and not as a glider.
You can register it as a glider when you buy it, Right Rudder aviation has/had one registered as this, but it doesn't make much sense given it's 15:1 glide ratio.

You can shut down the engine in flight in the Alpha Trainer regardless if it's registered as airplane or glider, but when registered as an aircraft you cannot install the feathering propeller.

When you buy a plane from Pipistrel you can choose if you want it registered as a glider or airplane. It, generally, cannot be changed latter.
I think you are confusing the airworthiness certificate with registration.
 
Just wanted to clear up some confusion I see about Pipistrel.

From my experience:
The Alpha Trainer is generally registered as an aircraft and not as a glider.
You can register it as a glider when you buy it, Right Rudder aviation has/had one registered as this, but it doesn't make much sense given it's 15:1 glide ratio.

You can shut down the engine in flight in the Alpha Trainer regardless if it's registered as airplane or glider, but when registered as an aircraft you cannot install the feathering propeller.

When you buy a plane from Pipistrel you can choose if you want it registered as a glider or airplane. It, generally, cannot be changed latter.

Edit: Registration in this context means initial airworthiness certificate.

It looks like Textron may have shifted their focus so each craft they sell now only has one rating.

There is no confusion on my end. Pipistrel currently produces two aircraft registered by the FAA as GLIDERS: the Taurus Electro and the Sinus. In the past, they made others. I'm specifically referring to the Sinus, which is currently sold ONLY as an LSA Motor Glider now.

My understanding is that the FAA has decertified (or whatever the correct term is) Alpha Trainers as Gliders because they have no air brakes and have a high tendency to go past the end of the runway (whatever the correct term for that is). There are some Virus Gliders still in use, but they do have air brakes; however, the Virus is no longer being sold as a Glider.

Most of the Sinus' sold were NOT rated as Gliders, so the older ones rated as Gliders are hard to come by on the used market. There are perhaps less than a dozen in North America.

Today, I believe the Sinus and the Virus are pretty much the same, but one is a Glider with (optional?) wing extensions, and one is not.
 
And maybe unless you've been flying for decades.

Or unless you got a PPL when you were in ROTC in the 70's.

Or unless you were trained in the military.

Or unless this or unless that ... how many other minor and irrelevant exceptions can y'all think up?

It's sad to see how many times people keep looping around saying, "unless you have ..." when the OP says specifically STARTING FROM NOTHING and the whole point of this post was because they (and many future readers) are wondering if there are meaningful any DIFFERENCES in STARTING (from NOTHING) as a GLIDER PILOT or as a SPORT PILOT that lead to the ability to fly the same aircraft that's rated as a MOTOR GLIDER.

Not to mention how there are so many posts that keep coming back to the PPL as a STARTING point, which is also NOT NOTHING, and also NOT EXEMPT FROM A MEDICAL the way both Glider and SP certs are -- as stated in the OP as well.

STARTING FROM NOTHING means ... NO PPL, NO SP, NO GLIDER, NO training or hours at all. NOTHING. Nada.

It's a totally LEGITIMATE QUESTION that is rarely discussed, and perhaps should be. I mean ... how many ground schools and online schools even MENTION about GLIDERS or SPORT PILOT certs as options? Given that the failure rates of PPL students are so frigging high, it might behoove them to CONSIDER these options just to keep people coming back without thinking they're a failure and have no future as aviators!
After this post I reread the thread, giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I saw nothing to substantiate your claims.

As a word of advice… if you come here looking for answers, you may want to accept the answers and tone down your rhetoric.

You will never get responses with that crappy attitude.
 
After this post I reread the thread, giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I saw nothing to substantiate your claims.

As a word of advice… if you come here looking for answers, you may want to accept the answers and tone down your rhetoric.

You will never get responses with that crappy attitude.

I'm sorry you're put off by the fact that I asked about licensing options that involved no medical, and I'm quite discouraged by how many posts specifically addressed things that DO require a medical.

What's there to "accept" about these replies? They do not apply!

Also, I posted in THIS group rather than the GA group specifically because it's for "Home Builders and Sport Pilots" -- two groups who can and often do fly without PPL licenses. I didn't expect most of the replies to be from people who apparently don't have a Sport Pilot cert, but one that DOES require a medical.

I'm trying to learn something here about a topic that I'm having a difficult time getting answered, and most of the replies don't address it. What kind of an attitude am I supposed to have?
 
I'm sorry you're put off by the fact that I asked about licensing options that involved no medical, and I'm quite discouraged by how many posts specifically addressed things that DO require a medical.

What's there to "accept" about these replies? They do not apply!

Also, I posted in THIS group rather than the GA group specifically because it's for "Home Builders and Sport Pilots" -- two groups who can and often do fly without PPL licenses. I didn't expect most of the replies to be from people who apparently don't have a Sport Pilot cert, but one that DOES require a medical.

I'm trying to learn something here about a topic that I'm having a difficult time getting answered, and most of the replies don't address it. What kind of an attitude am I supposed to have?
I’ve seen a lot of good info on this thread and very little that is not accurate. You started with, and perhaps still have confusion about which rules apply to the aircraft as certified (the “as certified” is important here) and which apply to the rating the pilot has, as well as misunderstandings caused by the manufacturer’s sales information. Most of the thread has been trying to help you understand the rules better. Giving you a yes or no, when your questions show you have fundamental misunderstandings is not going to help you.

And I’m not criticizing you. This confused the heck out of me when I first researched it as well, as I suspect it does everyone.
 
I asked about licensing options that involved no medical,
 
FWIW, when I asked my CFI about those options, I got a similar sort of response. It seems that the majority of the flight school industry is built around the ASEL PPL model, and a lot of CFIs (most?) and school administrative people honestly don't know much about the other options.

This extends to their fleets, as well - they tend to build around C172s and PA28s (at least from my experience).
That makes sense from a historical standpoint, but there are a couple of things I'm discovering probably because I'm just getting into this now, not 5+ years ago. One is that the costs to learn and especially the costs to fly have skyrocketed in the past few years.

A second is that there's this growing pilot shortage and a lot of places are shifting their focus to people who want to go from zero to ATC-rated and off-to-the-Majors ASAP. Lining up 10-20 such students a year represents a very solid business strategy. But the flip side is they're not making much effort to cater to "weekend warriors" who are just looking to fly occasionally and particularly aren't looking to make a career out of this. (There's one guy who makes lots of YT videos where he told someone very frankly that he has a large backlog of student inquiries, but is only focusing on those who are looking at it as a career move. I can't imagine he's alone given the current pilot shortage.)

But one way some places are tackling the cost issue is they're beginning to invest in LSA aircraft. I'm guessing that if you're looking at a 40-50 year-old aircraft and thinking about replacing the avionics with something more contemporary, it's around $40k investment. I'd be thinking it might be wiser to just get a new (or much newer) aircraft already equipped with what's needed, and LSAs tend to be less expensive than their slightly bigger/faster/heavier siblings.

However, another thing I've heard lately is a lot of talk about statistics that show around 85% of people who begin working on their PPL don't complete it, mainly because of COSTS. If you're looking to get into this as a career, then there are some fairly predictable steps you can take to ensure you're making money from this at some point. But simply getting a PPL is little more than "an expensive hobby" that a lot of people find hard to justify.

So maybe by starting with something that's 1/2 or 1/4 the time and cost of a PPL would get new students soloing much faster and then they'd become long-term customers instead of dead-end students. Especially if you're already leaning towards bringing in some newer LSA aircraft into the stable.

Also, all of this is hanging under the shadow of MOSAIC that may well end up recategorizing (?) a lot of GA aircraft as LSA and available to people with Sport Pilot licenses. I mean ... what if your entire fleet was suddenly eligible to be flown by Sport Pilots? I'd bet a lot of schools will start tripping over themselves to start offering Sport Pilot certifications ASAP! But that's just the way I tend to think.

This industry seems to be a very conservative bunch and dominated by older folks with decades of experience, most of whom move as a herd. They're skeptical, don't like change, and prefer that others run out ahead so they can see what sorts of arrows the took when the come back. :) Nothing wrong with that, for sure. People get that way as as they age. But it's the younger folks who tend to be more willing to look at jumping on obvious business trends.
 
Back
Top