US FAR 61.113 Private Pilots Towing gliders for compensation.

(a) says someone without a commercial license can't be paid to be PIC
unless he falls under one of the exceptions, and (g) provides an
exception for towpilots. So a towpilot without a commercial license can
be paid.

I don't see how it can be interpreted in any other way.



BTIZ wrote:
Pete.. read 61.113(a) again please... it says private pilots may not act as
PIC nor be Compensated except as in b through g...

so... para G exempts him from the PIC limitation, but not from the
compensation.

BT

"Pete Brown" wrote in message
...

61.113 (a) lays out the general prohibitions against private pilots flying
for compensation, subject to the exceptions laid out in paragraphs (b)
through (g). Read the plain language for what it says. Towing is one of
the exceptions to 61.113(a) which only discusses piloting for
compensation.

If a private pilot could not be paid for towing, there would be no need
whatsoever for paragraph (g). It would be excluded by 61.113(a).

FAA inspectors are bound by the language, not whether they agree with or
like the regulation.

Pete Brown


BTIZ wrote:

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message


1) The wording in § 61.113(g) is quite clear and allows a
private pilot to tow for compensation.


no it is not clear... and that is the issue...

61.113(a) says a private pilot cannot act as PIC nor receive compensation
except as provided in (b) through (g)
(b) through (f) cover various circumstances when a private pilot may
share pro rata expenses, be reimbursed for cost, fly as PIC for charity
events etc, and fly as "incidental" to a business, but it never says he
can be paid to be a pilot.
(g) says he can be PIC for towing, it does not say he can get paid to do
it.

Sooo... (a) says he cannot be PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers or
cargo except for (g), and (g) says he can be PIC for towing, it does not
say he can be compensated.

I've heard these comments about Mr Lynch in the past, and if his
information is so bad, then why does the FAA keep updating it on their
official gov web page?



--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

IIRC, the 'intent' was to allow 'free' flying while towing, irrespective of
whether the time logged was for another rating. Previously that was
considered 'indirect' compensation and wasn't allowed. Lynch's intent was
to allow time building toward another rating without direct compensation.
Direct compensation still requires a commercial rating and there was no
intent to change that. However, the verbage was munged so badly that there
was a FAQ created and still it's unclear and remains unrevised. I've heard
comments that seem to indicate that there are some FBO's allowing (or having
allowed) private tow pilots to fly without direct compensation. That may be
limited to instructional flights only, where the commercial activity is
clearly in the glider end of the rope. It may not be compliant with tow for
hire insurance coverage. My own club carries tow for hire coverage so we
can tow non-member gliders or tow in local competitions. We do allow
private tow pilots to tow members only. The FAA rule is obscure at best.

Lynch is long since retired I believe.

Frank Whiteley


"Greg Arnold" wrote in message
news:jEGHd.12903$ru.1384@fed1read07...
(a) says someone without a commercial license can't be paid to be PIC
unless he falls under one of the exceptions, and (g) provides an
exception for towpilots. So a towpilot without a commercial license can
be paid.

I don't see how it can be interpreted in any other way.



BTIZ wrote:
Pete.. read 61.113(a) again please... it says private pilots may not act
as
PIC nor be Compensated except as in b through g...

so... para G exempts him from the PIC limitation, but not from the
compensation.

BT

"Pete Brown" wrote in message
...

61.113 (a) lays out the general prohibitions against private pilots
flying
for compensation, subject to the exceptions laid out in paragraphs (b)
through (g). Read the plain language for what it says. Towing is one of
the exceptions to 61.113(a) which only discusses piloting for
compensation.

If a private pilot could not be paid for towing, there would be no need
whatsoever for paragraph (g). It would be excluded by 61.113(a).

FAA inspectors are bound by the language, not whether they agree with or
like the regulation.

Pete Brown


BTIZ wrote:

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message


1) The wording in § 61.113(g) is quite clear and allows a
private pilot to tow for compensation.


no it is not clear... and that is the issue...

61.113(a) says a private pilot cannot act as PIC nor receive
compensation
except as provided in (b) through (g)
(b) through (f) cover various circumstances when a private pilot may
share pro rata expenses, be reimbursed for cost, fly as PIC for charity
events etc, and fly as "incidental" to a business, but it never says he
can be paid to be a pilot.
(g) says he can be PIC for towing, it does not say he can get paid to
do
it.

Sooo... (a) says he cannot be PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers or
cargo except for (g), and (g) says he can be PIC for towing, it does
not
say he can be compensated.

I've heard these comments about Mr Lynch in the past, and if his
information is so bad, then why does the FAA keep updating it on their
official gov web page?



--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

"Pete Brown" wrote in message ...
Safety was not the issue.

Huh? Commercial pilots are tested to a higher standard and must have more
flight hours to even qualify to be tested. I agree that pilot competency is a
very individual thing, but having passed the requirements for the Commercial
does establish a certain minimum.

Vaughn

At 05:30 20 January 2005, Pete Brown wrote:

(yada yada yada)

In the old days, prior to the rewrite the SSA had an

exemption, much like the data plate exemption, that
allowed
towing by private pilots for compensation by SSA chartered

clubs. (Up to that point, compensation, as defined
by the
FAA, included the logging of time even if the pilot
was not
paid.)

I don't believe there ever was an 'exemption' per se,
but an understanding by John Lynch and his predecessors
in the General/Commercial division at FAA. IIRC, logging
flight time surfaced as a 'compensation' issue in the
context of drug testing rules from which soaring operators
were excluded in 1988/89.

I believe 61.113(g) was intended to codify the intent
that tow pilots - particularly those active in club
operations - need not be commercial rated if 'compensation'
is limited to the logging of flight time.

Lynch (who has not retired, but was on a leave of absence
for military duty last year) phrased it in the October
2004 edition of the Part 61 FAQ:

'Q&A 619 § 61.113(g); Yes. . . A private pilot who
meets the requirements of § 61.69 of this part may
act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider
. . And yes, a private pilot who meets the requirements
of §61.69 of this part may log pilot in command flight
time while towing a glider. That is what was intended
when paragraph § 61.113(g) was drafted into Part 61.


Later in the same document, Lynch explains with respect
to § 61.113(g): 'The answer is no, a private pilot
may not receive compensation for towing a glider.


The intent, and the wording of the § 61.113(g), was
to permit a private pilot who meets the requirements
of § 61.69 of this part to “. . . act as pilot in command
of an aircraft towing a glider” for the purpose of
logging pilot in command (PIC) time. The new rule
was never intended to conflict with the FAA’s long
standing legal interpretations and policies on compensation
for private pilots. And the wording of the § 61.113(g)
only addresses the issue that permits a private pilot
to “. . . act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing
a glider” for the purpose of permitting a private pilot
to log pilot in command time. As you recall, the wording
of the old § 61.69 permitted a private pilot to act
as a PIC but was moot on logging the time. The § 61.113(g)
was issued to correct it.

However, we agree the wording of the § 61.113(a) may
be confusing. In the next go-around on correcting
some of the wording mistakes, we have recorded it as
a needed correction to conform the intent and the wording
of § 61.113(g).'


Judy



The rewrite in 1997(?) of Part 61 was supposed to
eliminate
the need for the towing exemption. All they did was
further
confuse the issue.

Pete


--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

Vaughn:

I agree that tow pilots must have a much higher degree of
competency and experience and 61.69 established the higher
standards for knowledge, experience and training that the
FAA thought necessary for glider towing.

The FAA thought it important that tow pilots know about
speeds, safety matters , and signals etc, that are pertinent
to glider operations, none of which subjects are covered in
the training for commercial pilots. That's one of the
primary reasons that a tow pilot must get ground and flight
training by a CFIG and make at least three tows while
accompanied by a tow "qualified" pilot.

The FAA's assumption is that certificated pilots can fly
airplanes but don't know much about glider ops without
additional training. Hence it requires the the training and
experience that is unique to gliders towing ops. Have you
ever been towed by a thoroughly competent commercial pilot
who strictly maintains the runway heading in a stiff
crosswind instead of drifting downwind (when field
conditions permit) because he is unaware of the
complications for a glider in the event of a low rope break
? Or been dragged down wind too far because the pilot is not
as sensitive to those conditions as we glider pilots?

The FAA further requires a unique towing currency provision
for tow pilots. A tow pilot towing every day for a year must
make at least three flights while accompanied by "qualified"
tow pilot or make three flights as PIC in a glider to remain
current for the coming year. Flying commercially every day
as a charter pilot or shooting instrument approaches does
not solve the legal or practical requirements of maintaining
tow pilot currency.

All of these requirements reflect the fact that the FAA
appropriately recognized that towing required a unique set
of skills and experience.



Vaughn wrote:
"Pete Brown" wrote in message ...

Safety was not the issue.


Huh? Commercial pilots are tested to a higher standard and must have more
flight hours to even qualify to be tested. I agree that pilot competency is a
very individual thing, but having passed the requirements for the Commercial
does establish a certain minimum.

Vaughn



--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

At a local club the board uses a mix of private and higher
licensed, and tow qualified pilots, to tow their club
gliders, without compensation.

I've never heard so much as a peep out of the FSDO about this.

Is there anyone who has ever, in the history of flight,
had an enforcement action for getting flight time, and only
flight time, while towing a glider (commercially or not)?

If not, isn't this just a little bit academic?
Look, I love a good magnifying glass as much as the
next guy, but I'm guessing the FAA cares not even a whit.
The insurance companies are doing a much better job enforcing
and "fining" violators than the FSDO ever will...
Oh, in my honest opinion

In article ,
Judy Ruprecht wrote:
At 05:30 20 January 2005, Pete Brown wrote:

(yada yada yada)

In the old days, prior to the rewrite the SSA had an

exemption, much like the data plate exemption, that
allowed
towing by private pilots for compensation by SSA chartered

clubs. (Up to that point, compensation, as defined
by the
FAA, included the logging of time even if the pilot
was not
paid.)

I don't believe there ever was an 'exemption' per se,
but an understanding by John Lynch and his predecessors
in the General/Commercial division at FAA. IIRC, logging
flight time surfaced as a 'compensation' issue in the
context of drug testing rules from which soaring operators
were excluded in 1988/89.

I believe 61.113(g) was intended to codify the intent
that tow pilots - particularly those active in club
operations - need not be commercial rated if 'compensation'
is limited to the logging of flight time.

Lynch (who has not retired, but was on a leave of absence
for military duty last year) phrased it in the October
2004 edition of the Part 61 FAQ:

'Q&A 619 § 61.113(g); Yes. . . A private pilot who
meets the requirements of § 61.69 of this part may
act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider
. . And yes, a private pilot who meets the requirements
of §61.69 of this part may log pilot in command flight
time while towing a glider. That is what was intended
when paragraph § 61.113(g) was drafted into Part 61.


Later in the same document, Lynch explains with respect
to § 61.113(g): 'The answer is no, a private pilot
may not receive compensation for towing a glider.


The intent, and the wording of the § 61.113(g), was
to permit a private pilot who meets the requirements
of § 61.69 of this part to “. . . act as pilot in command
of an aircraft towing a glider” for the purpose of
logging pilot in command (PIC) time. The new rule
was never intended to conflict with the FAA’s long
standing legal interpretations and policies on compensation
for private pilots. And the wording of the § 61.113(g)
only addresses the issue that permits a private pilot
to “. . . act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing
a glider” for the purpose of permitting a private pilot
to log pilot in command time. As you recall, the wording
of the old § 61.69 permitted a private pilot to act
as a PIC but was moot on logging the time. The § 61.113(g)
was issued to correct it.

However, we agree the wording of the § 61.113(a) may
be confusing. In the next go-around on correcting
some of the wording mistakes, we have recorded it as
a needed correction to conform the intent and the wording
of § 61.113(g).'


Judy



The rewrite in 1997(?) of Part 61 was supposed to
eliminate
the need for the towing exemption. All they did was
further
confuse the issue.

Pete


--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/









--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

"Pete Brown" wrote in message
...
Vaughn:

I agree that tow pilots must have a much higher degree of
competency and experience

Good!

and 61.69 established the higher
standards for knowledge, experience and training that the
FAA thought necessary for glider towing.

Then the FAA didn't think much (more below).

The FAA thought it important that tow pilots know about
speeds, safety matters , and signals etc, that are pertinent
to glider operations, none of which subjects are covered in
the training for commercial pilots. That's one of the
primary reasons that a tow pilot must get ground and flight
training by a CFIG and make at least three tows while
accompanied by a tow "qualified" pilot.

Three tows ain't much!

The FAA's assumption is that certificated pilots can fly
airplanes but don't know much about glider ops without
additional training. Hence it requires the the training and
experience that is unique to gliders towing ops. Have you
ever been towed by a thoroughly competent commercial pilot
who strictly maintains the runway heading in a stiff
crosswind instead of drifting downwind (when field
conditions permit) because he is unaware of the
complications for a glider in the event of a low rope break
? Or been dragged down wind too far because the pilot is not
as sensitive to those conditions as we glider pilots?

Damn right I have!

The FAA further requires a unique towing currency provision
for tow pilots. A tow pilot towing every day for a year must
make at least three flights while accompanied by "qualified"
tow pilot or make three flights as PIC in a glider to remain
current for the coming year.

Again, not much

Flying commercially every day
as a charter pilot or shooting instrument approaches does
not solve the legal or practical requirements of maintaining
tow pilot currency.

Nor does shooting touch & goes or taking $100.00 hamburger flights in your
typical Cezzna.

All of these requirements reflect the fact that the FAA
appropriately recognized that towing required a unique set
of skills and experience.

The reality is that it takes far more than three tows to produce a
competent tow pilot. 61.69 provides a bare minimum of training. I would not
think of sending one of my solo students up behind a new tow pilot (Private,
Commercial, ATP, whatever) who had just shown up at the field and barely
complied with 61.69. Would you?

Actually; I have virtually no disagreement with what you have written
above, and agree that any given Private pilot might easily be a better tow pilot
than any given Commercial. That said, the reality is that I would rather have
an unknown Commercial pilot on the front of my tow rope than an unknown Private
pilot because the Commercial pilot has been trained to a higher standard and
probably has more experience. I have had some wild tows in my life and that is
something I can happily live without.

Don't get me wrong, in a club situation I could be happy and honored to tow
behind a good Private pilot, particularly one that was also a glider pilot.

But It *IS* about safety.
Vaughn












petency is a
very individual thing, but having passed the requirements for the Commercial
does establish a certain minimum.

Vaughn



--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

My own club carries tow for hire coverage so we
can tow non-member gliders or tow in local competitions. We do allow
private tow pilots to tow members only. The FAA rule is obscure at best.

Lynch is long since retired I believe.

Frank Whiteley

Frank, I have been instructed the same by our insurance carrier.. probably
the same carrier.. the same thing.. if we even add the "CAP" clause, the tow
pilot for "commercial tow" must be Commercial rated, the only Pvt tow pilot
we have, could only tow club members.

BT

Vaughn wrote:

"Pete Brown" wrote in message

That's one of the
primary reasons that a tow pilot must get ground and flight
training by a CFIG and make at least three tows while
accompanied by a tow "qualified" pilot.

Three tows ain't much!

It's worse than this. You don't need three tows. You can
do three "simulated tows" instead to become qualified.

This is how I was initially "qualified." Got the
endorsements to prove it. Saved $100 on the insurance
increase for adding a tow pilot. Yee-ha!

After that I did enough tows to ensure I knew I could
do at least the basics of towing...

Of course I did this with supervision. The experienced
tow pilot sat in the right seat. I even turned down one
tow and made him do it. :P

I sure wouldn't tow no "first solo" student, or a ballasted
ship, as my very first tow, or even my first dozen. But there ARE
tow syllabi and good towpilot mentors that can get a
pilot to the level that with an experienced glider guy
behind him, he'll be safe enough to tow with reasonable
safety.

IMHO, right? Otherwise it looks like we'll need to invest in
some wenches instead...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I believe it's only legal in Nevada to invest in wenches!
Almost springtime!
Larry
Mark James Boyd wrote:
Vaughn wrote:

"Pete Brown" wrote in message

That's one of the
primary reasons that a tow pilot must get ground and flight
training by a CFIG and make at least three tows while
accompanied by a tow "qualified" pilot.

Three tows ain't much!

It's worse than this. You don't need three tows. You can
do three "simulated tows" instead to become qualified.

This is how I was initially "qualified." Got the
endorsements to prove it. Saved $100 on the insurance
increase for adding a tow pilot. Yee-ha!

After that I did enough tows to ensure I knew I could
do at least the basics of towing...

Of course I did this with supervision. The experienced
tow pilot sat in the right seat. I even turned down one
tow and made him do it. :P

I sure wouldn't tow no "first solo" student, or a ballasted
ship, as my very first tow, or even my first dozen. But there ARE
tow syllabi and good towpilot mentors that can get a
pilot to the level that with an experienced glider guy
behind him, he'll be safe enough to tow with reasonable
safety.

IMHO, right? Otherwise it looks like we'll need to invest in
some wenches instead...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd