On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 9:47:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Just because one system is superior and safer to another has nothing to do with whether it is approved for installation by the FAA. The documentation for installing a tow release on a particular aircraft is clearly spelled out. If it permits a Schweizer hook, then that's what has to be installed to pass inspection. Changing to a Tost is not in compliance with the documentation, so it would not pass inspection.

Getting a Tost approved for retrofit to an aircraft for which it is not specifically approved can be an arduous and time consuming process. ANYTHING having to do with the regulatory environment at the FAA is a long and painful experience. Bob Carlton and I spent NINE YEARS getting the FAA to agree to a method to extend the life limit on the Pegasus. And that was an instance where the FAA had obviously made a mistake, violated their own procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and still "circled the wagons' to defend the one guy who pushed the life limit AD through.

I am certainly not arguing that getting a Tost approved for all aircraft would be a desirable thing. It is just that EACH aircraft type would have to be individually approved. There are very few if any "blanket" approvals across aircraft types for mechanical devices. Avionics are another story, but we aren't talking about that type of equipment.

As far as releasing liability, the big question is whether the tow pilot or his employer (club or commercial) is providing an aviation service for compensation. If the glider pilot is paying for the tow, then it is fairly obvious. However, as you say, four lawyers can easily deliver six opinions.

MARK, I think you missed my point but that's okay. I understand everything you said, still the FAA is now knowingly insisting on utilization of a device on some airplanes which has been proven to fail to do what it is supposed to do when the feces makes physical contact with the whirling blades of an electrically driven air moving device. Change can be accomplished, someone needs to make the first move. I understand government bureaucracy, I had to deal with OSHA in the Nuclear Power Plant world but I do have to say the OSHA guys were quite reasonable, UNLESS there was a glaring violation and then they insisted on compliance.

Flying with the Schweizer hook is kinda like driving drunk. Happens countless times each day as does towing with the Schweizer hook but nothing happens. Then someone get caught just like a tow pilot gets kited but no one gets killed but lesson learned. The drunk driver gets away with maybe a big fine, license suspended for a period as the tow pilot gets away with his life. Then the s--t hits the fan. The drunk kills someone and perhaps himself, the tow pilot crashes, loses his life. The drunk driver knew he was driving drunk, his family and friends knew he did it but no intervention. The Tug pilot knows he is pulling with a questionable device...

It's easier to look the other way and decide to do nothing than to take action and correct a known deficit. Easier until someone dies. Granted the Byron example might not have been avoided by any current release system, the pilot didn't have time to release and recover but another tow pilot will die in the future due to a system which is known to fail when it is needed the most. And what is the value of a life?

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.