Tow Pilot Currency and Proficiency

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:43:02 AM UTC-7, Walt Connelly wrote:

snipped a big hunk out

.. According to the FARs, I don't
need another towpilot to refresh me -- because the accident record for
folks like me don't justify changing the reg to be any more restrictive..
(Thanks be.)





Cindy B, thank you for your indepth analysis of my post.

Sure, you're welcome.

I am all for
training, retraining, currency and maintaining awareness of all that is
necessary for the safe operation of the towplane.

Cool. Healthy outlook.

snipped out more . .
My logical, practical side seems to overwhelm any other position I or
anyone else might take on this subject. I am not current in a glider to
fly passengers although I still fall within the 24 month requirement of
3 aerotows. Again I don't think this alone would safely permit me to
fly the towplane.

I have flown tow for about a year and a half and have logged over 3700,
it keeps you on your "toes" pardon the pun. I have learned that
experience is the great teacher and I have also tried to continually
study, read, ask questions and make myself as familiar as possible with
the process. I take my flying very seriously

Also good.

As I am sure you are aware there is a great
disparity in skill level.

Yep.


One of my problems with the FARs is that the I find myself getting lost
in the legalese. I went to college and graduate school and still find
myself reading and rereading each line trying to make sense of it all. I
continually ask myself what it is that I don't know and what am I
violating?
Healthy pass-time too.

How many glider add-ons have been completed by power pilots
who haven't flown in years and who had no flight review in the last two
years? I don't believe that even the DPEs have been aware of this
rule. Too many rules, regs and laws and not enough common sense.

The No-Flight-Review=No-Solo-in-New-Category came about as an INTERPRETATION
that was issued by FAA, not a rule change. A minority voice asked for FAA to inspect the regs and answer their question. Had that not happened, we would have happily continued as before. The common sense should have been the step of not waking the sleeping dog . . . failed on that one. And FAA has indicated a willingness to resolve this by a prompt sensible act in rule changes.

Meanwhile, let's encourage refresher programs in training, and keep the accidents involving towpilots to a minimum. If we don't create an accident
rate due to this 'oversight'..... we won't get a new reg.

Cindy



Walt




--
Walt Connelly

The No-Flight-Review=No-Solo-in-New-Category came about as an INTERPRETATION
that was issued by FAA, not a rule change. A minority voice asked for FAA to inspect the regs and answer their question. Had that not happened, we would have happily continued as before. The common sense should have been the step of not waking the sleeping dog . . . failed on that one. And FAA has indicated a willingness to resolve this by a prompt sensible act in rule changes.

Meanwhile, let's encourage refresher programs in training, and keep the accidents involving towpilots to a minimum. If we don't create an accident
rate due to this 'oversight'..... we won't get a new reg.

Cindy







--
Walt Connelly[/quote]

I am currently reading 14 CFR Part 61. I have a headache and need some ice cream. Let's find that minority voice and silence him forever. (tongue in cheek)


Walt