Another legality question - this time, towpilots

Just to add one more thing:

I just got an e-mail from a member of my own glider club. He pointed out that within our club "We are flying our own airplane for our own use and there is no compensation or hire involved."

The rules change if we provide tows for pilots that are not members of our club.
 
BillTIZ said:
Private pilots can tow, can put it in the logbooks and use that time towards additional ratings and do not have to pay part of the cost of flying the tow plane. AND HE CAN GET PAID FOR IT.
Click to expand...
I think if you ask the FAA Chief Counsel, you'll find you were OK right up until that last part (which I've bolded), and that they'll tell you getting paid money for flying the tow plane crosses the line. The towee can pay the club for the tow, and someone can pay for a ride in the towed glider, but I'm pretty sure the PP tow pilot cannot receive any compensation other than the logged time.
 
so when they said the Private Pilot could be compensated for towing a glider, they didn't really mean it?
 
gismo said:
But since the FAQ was rescinded
Click to expand...
The FAQ file was never "rescinded." It was merely made an "internal use" document rather than a public "official policy" document. It is still used as internal guidance within the FAA Flight Standards Service for situations not addressed by the Chief Counsel, and over 150 more FAQ's have been added since that internalization. IOW, if an Inspector has a question about Part 61 issues not addressed by a legal interpretation, s/he will go to that document next, and proceed accordingly. Do what that document says, and there's almost zero chance anyone in the FSDO will take issue with what you did. Do otherwise, and you may need a lawyer to argue your case before it's all over.
 
tonycondon said:
so when they said the Private Pilot could be compensated for towing a glider, they didn't really mean it?
Click to expand...
I don't see where they ever said that -- only that a PP could act as PIC for a glider tow. I see nothing in the regs or any legal interpretation which says a PP tow pilot can receive any compensation other than the time in the log book. Given the harshness with which the FAA treats 61.113 violations, I most strongly recommend that no PP doing glider tows accept any monetary or other compensation besides that flight time without obtaining a legal opinion that specifically says it's OK.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't see where they ever said that -- only that a PP could act as PIC for a glider tow. I see nothing in the regs or any legal interpretation which says a PP tow pilot can receive any compensation other than the time in the log book. Given the harshness with which the FAA treats 61.113 violations, I most strongly recommend that no PP doing glider tows accept any monetary or other compensation besides that flight time without obtaining a legal opinion that specifically says it's OK.
Click to expand...

i may be having trouble reading, but doesn't 61.113(g) exempt glider towing by private pilots, therefore allowing private pilots to receive compensation for towing gliders?
 
Ron Levy said:
I think if you ask the FAA Chief Counsel, you'll find you were OK right up until that last part (which I've bolded), and that they'll tell you getting paid money for flying the tow plane crosses the line. The towee can pay the club for the tow, and someone can pay for a ride in the towed glider, but I'm pretty sure the PP tow pilot cannot receive any compensation other than the logged time.
Click to expand...

While I agree that makes a lot of sense, I don't see any support for that interpretation in the FAR. Do you know of any other examples where the FAA distinguishes between kinds of "compensation" without specific wording in the reg?
 
I agree with Tony on this. Section g specifically excludes towing from the list of activities that can be done for "Compensation".

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.
Click to expand...
 
tonycondon said:
i may be having trouble reading, but doesn't 61.113(g) exempt glider towing by private pilots, therefore allowing private pilots to receive compensation for towing gliders?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's as simple as that. Here's the full text of the relevant paragraphs:
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
Click to expand...
(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.
Click to expand...
Note that paragraph (a) contains not one, but two prohibitions -- acting as PIC, and receiving compensation. Paragraph (g) appears to exempt the PP tow pilot from the first prohibition (acting as PIC), but not from the second (receiving compensation). Given what it says in the FAQ file, I would expect an FAA Inspector to act on that basis, and initiate an enforcement action citing 61.113(a) if s/he finds a PP receiving monetary compensation for acting as a tow pilot rather than just acting as PIC without pay. Therefore, unless/until an FAA Counsel says otherwise, I would consider it highly imprudent for a PP to accept compensation other than loggable time for towing a glider.
 
Just curious. How is receiving payment, and receiving compensation in terms of loggable time different? I'm not arguing here, I just want to know how the FAA differentiates these levels of compensation.
 
I'm betting it is vague because it can be. Not a lot of people trying or opportunity to earn money and build time towing gliders with a PP. I don't know of any glider clubs that provide money or earned tows in exchange for towing but there could be some. I do know of several where yearly dues are less for instructors and towpilots. If PP towpilots weren't allowed $ compensation then they shouldn't accept glider club dues reductions(the horror the horror.) The whole thing might be a case of the FAA being reasonable and libertarian with a small group of aviators.
 
FWIW (less than two cents), my two pennies.

If you read (g) by itself, what does it allow?

(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

But if the PP is in compliance with 61.69, they can do that already. (g) is an excemption to (a)

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(g) allows a PP the privileges of (a) as a Towpilot. 1) A PP can act as PIC of Towplane that is FCOH(first restriction of (a)), and 2, a PP can act as PIC FCOH as a Towpilot.

HOWEVER, though it is written liberally, one would be prudent to read FCOH as "I can log the hours PIC", rather than "I can get paid".

As a PP towpilot, I wouldn't take monetary compensation, even though I believe the FAR's allow it, because I don't believe it was what was intended.

Tim

Ron Levy said:
I don't think it's as simple as that. Here's the full text of the relevant paragraphs:

Note that paragraph (a) contains not one, but two prohibitions -- acting as PIC, and receiving compensation. Paragraph (g) appears to exempt the PP tow pilot from the first prohibition (acting as PIC), but not from the second (receiving compensation). Given what it says in the FAQ file, I would expect an FAA Inspector to act on that basis, and initiate an enforcement action citing 61.113(a) if s/he finds a PP receiving monetary compensation for acting as a tow pilot rather than just acting as PIC without pay. Therefore, unless/until an FAA Counsel says otherwise, I would consider it highly imprudent for a PP to accept compensation other than loggable time for towing a glider.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I don't think it's as simple as that. Here's the full text of the relevant paragraphs:

Note that paragraph (a) contains not one, but two prohibitions -- acting as PIC, and receiving compensation. Paragraph (g) appears to exempt the PP tow pilot from the first prohibition (acting as PIC), but not from the second (receiving compensation). Given what it says in the FAQ file, I would expect an FAA Inspector to act on that basis, and initiate an enforcement action citing 61.113(a) if s/he finds a PP receiving monetary compensation for acting as a tow pilot rather than just acting as PIC without pay. Therefore, unless/until an FAA Counsel says otherwise, I would consider it highly imprudent for a PP to accept compensation other than loggable time for towing a glider.
Click to expand...

On my third re-read of 61.113 and ignoring the FAQ completely, I'm leaning towards Ron's interpretation and abandoning mine. The two limitations in para (a) are similar enough to be easily confused or considered equivalent but they are subtly different. Per standard FAA speak, each could be specifically exempted by language in paras (b-g) but (g) pretty clearly addresses only the ability to act as PIC "of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" and doesn't mention anything about "for compensation or hire, act" as PIC. IOW (g) only allows the private pilot to fly the plane, but doesn't allow him to be otherwise compensated or hired. Looking at para (b) you can see an example of the opposite exemption. That one allows a PP to be compensated but doesn't allow him to act as PIC if the flight is being paid for by someone else.

The only remaining reservations I have are that 1) Towing a glider isn't exactly flying an aircraft that is "carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" that aircraft (if any) is the one tied to the towplane with a rope and piloted by someone else (hopefully) and 2) while para (b) includes language to oppose the exemption to one half of para (a), no such language is contained in para (g). Surely things would be clearer if para (g) contained something like "if the pilot is not compensated financially for the flight". I also see that para (f) doesn't disallow charging demo customers for the flight but I suspect that this isn't allowable either. Does anyone think that a private pilot with at least 200 hours could legally fly a passenger on a "demostration flight" from Minneapolis to Kansas City and charge the passenger for the flight? Or even charge for a local demo flight as if it were a sightseeing tour?
 
gismo said:
<snip>
but (g) pretty clearly addresses only the ability to act as PIC "of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" and doesn't mention anything about "for compensation or hire, act" as PIC.
<snip>
Click to expand...

I don't see where (g) clearly delineates between the two prohibitions in (a).

(a)'s prohibitions are:
1) PP can't act as PIC if aircraft is FCOH
2) PP can't act as PIC if pilot is FCOH

Where does (g) differentiate between the two?

(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

Tim
 
Troska said:
I don't see where (g) clearly delineates between the two prohibitions in (a).

(a)'s prohibitions are:
1) PP can't act as PIC if aircraft is FCOH
2) PP can't act as PIC if pilot is FCOH

Where does (g) differentiate between the two?

(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

Tim
Click to expand...

Now I don't see it either, in fact if anything g seems more applicable to (a)2 just like (f).
 
gismo said:
Now I don't see it either, in fact if anything g seems more applicable to (a)2 just like (f).
Click to expand...

That's because (a) doesn't really differentiate. The exceptions in (b)-(g) apply to all of (a), not just part of (a).

Oh, and when it comes down to legally deciding between what they "meant" and what they actually "wrote" in the regs, "wrote" wins every time. Only where you can't get there from "wrote" does "meant" have any say in the matter.
 
FWIW, I tend to agree with Ron's viewand the FAQ statement. Here's why:

Independent of the FAQ, there's a bit of history. There's an older Chief Counsel opinion in which the logging of flight time was treated as compensation for glider towing. My WAG is that the addition of 61.113(g) was designed to reverse that specific Chief Counsel opinion without harming the general concept of "flight time as compensation."

Of course, as Tim points out, for a definitive answer, ask the Chief Counsel's office.
 
Something to keep in mind, the tow aircraft should be on a 100-hour inspection program if the pilot receives any type of compensation or not. Compersation could come in the form of several things, even if we think it petty.
 
Stache said:
Something to keep in mind, the tow aircraft should be on a 100-hour inspection program if the pilot receives any type of compensation or not. Compersation could come in the form of several things, even if we think it petty.
Click to expand...

So if a glider pilot/tow pilot gets a discount on glider club membership because of donating unpaid time towing you think the tow plane needs 100 hour inspections? What if the towpilot is just logging the time without any financial connection? 100 hours inspections because someone is logging time is a bit much imo.
 
OK - here's more (just in case this thread was slowing down).

Here's the website of the Chief Counsel, you can look up official interpretations:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/

I entered "tow" in the search field, and got the attached document.

It refers to 61.118. Apparently, 61.118 was later renumbered to 61.113.

The opinion was written in 1990 and is in response to questions from a glider club that was asking the same question.

I could not find the questions that resulted in this response though. The Chief Counsel, on the last page, suggests that PP tow pilots either not log the time, or get their commercial.

I don't know if changing 61.118 into 61.113 voids this interpretation, or if another ruling later overrules it.



edit:

After reading a little closer, the letter refers to 61.118 and says "Except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation of hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."

The newer reg, 61.113 starts with "(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."



Is it correct to say that since the reg has changed (not just from 118 to 113, but in content as well) that this ruling no longer applies?


edit again:

I searched the Chief Counsel site for 61.113 and found 5 entries, none of which referred to (g). A search on 61.118 found 9 entries, only one applied to the section on towpilots, and that's the one I attached.
 

Attachments

  • Lincoln_Chief_Counsel.pdf
    27.2 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
Matthew said:
Just to add one more thing:

I just got an e-mail from a member of my own glider club. He pointed out that within our club "We are flying our own airplane for our own use and there is no compensation or hire involved."

The rules change if we provide tows for pilots that are not members of our club.
Click to expand...

You can provide the tow to people who are not members of your club.. but based on your insurance rules.. you can tow all day and not charge the glider pilot for the tow...

But he is correct.. you are using your own airplane for your own club operations.. and within the FARs and the insurance coverage.
 
TMetzinger said:
Well, if you want a definitive answer in about 6-8 months, I'll ask the counsel.
Click to expand...

Troska said:
I don't. Sleeping dogs and all that.

Tim
Click to expand...

ClimbnSink said:
Please don't ask. Sleeping dogs and such.
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
What is the down side?
Click to expand...

Down side: See Mangiamele That letter took the fairly well understood 61.113(b) and gutted it. Instead of the old understanding (You can get your expenses reimbursed for business travel so long as you had to get there anyway), it created a new requirement that you not be carrying people or property on such a trip. So if you have to fly on business, and decide to take your wife along, you can no longer be reimbursed.
 
Stache said:
Something to keep in mind, the tow aircraft should be on a 100-hour inspection program if the pilot receives any type of compensation or not.
Click to expand...
How come? What reg are you referring to? The 100-hour reg I'm familiar with is 91.409 which talks about aircraft carrying persons for hire or used for giving flight instruction for hire. There may be one, it I'm not aware of any FAA interpretation that treats the people in the glider as passnegers in the towing airplane for the purpose of this reg.
 
Matthew said:
OK - here's more (just in case this thread was slowing down).

Here's the website of the Chief Counsel, you can look up official interpretations:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/

I entered "tow" in the search field, and got the attached document.

It refers to 61.118. Apparently, 61.118 was later renumbered to 61.113.

The opinion was written in 1990 and is in response to questions from a glider club that was asking the same question.

I could not find the questions that resulted in this response though. The Chief Counsel, on the last page, suggests that PP tow pilots either not log the time, or get their commercial.

I don't know if changing 61.118 into 61.113 voids this interpretation, or if another ruling later overrules it.



edit:

After reading a little closer, the letter refers to 61.118 and says "Except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation of hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."

The newer reg, 61.113 starts with "(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."



Is it correct to say that since the reg has changed (not just from 118 to 113, but in content as well) that this ruling no longer applies?
Click to expand...
That's what I was referring to earlier. What is now (g) was added specifically in order to reverse the result of this interpretation. The 1995 Federal Register commentary entry for the proposed change says that the change "Permits a private pilot who acts as PIC when towing gliders to log the flight time." This was reconfirmed in the Federal Register commentary for the Final Rule in 1997.
 
I believe the INTENT of the rewrite was to allow private pilots to tow gliders and log the time.

But what they actually WROTE doesn't do that. They could have written something in (g) that said "...but may not receive remuneration", for example.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's what I was referring to earlier. What is now (g) was added specifically in order to reverse the result of this interpretation. The 1995 Federal Register commentary entry for the proposed change says that the change "Permits a private pilot who acts as PIC when towing gliders to log the flight time." This was reconfirmed in the Federal Register commentary for the Final Rule in 1997.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I understand. I don't think there's any question about the ability of a PP towpilot to log PIC time, the question that I'm trying to get a yes/no answer on (with FAA references) is: Does the PP towpilot have to pay the pro-rated share of the expenses of the tow flight or is that free flight time considered a compensation that a PP is not entitled to?
 
gismo said:
The only remaining reservations I have are that 1) Towing a glider isn't exactly flying an aircraft that is "carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" that aircraft (if any) is the one tied to the towplane with a rope
Click to expand...
Is not that glider property being carried?
I also see that para (f) doesn't disallow charging demo customers for the flight but I suspect that this isn't allowable either. Does anyone think that a private pilot with at least 200 hours could legally fly a passenger on a "demostration flight" from Minneapolis to Kansas City and charge the passenger for the flight? Or even charge for a local demo flight as if it were a sightseeing tour?
Click to expand...
I don't think they could charge for the demo if the demo pilot was a PP, but I've not researched it. I think the issue is that the demo pilot is getting paid for doing the demo, and the FAA made this an exception to the rule about PP's getting paid for piloting (because the demo pilot is primarily a salesman), not for piloting paying passengers.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's what I was referring to earlier. What is now (g) was added specifically in order to reverse the result of this interpretation. The 1995 Federal Register commentary entry for the proposed change says that the change "Permits a private pilot who acts as PIC when towing gliders to log the flight time." This was reconfirmed in the Federal Register commentary for the Final Rule in 1997.
Click to expand...
Good catch, Mark. Note that what is written in the preamble to a rule change carries great weight in interpretations of the rule. That statement makes clear that the only issue covered by paragraph (g) is logging time, not receiving other compensation.
 
Matthew said:
Yeah, I understand. I don't think there's any question about the ability of a PP towpilot to log PIC time, the question that I'm trying to get a yes/no answer on (with FAA references) is: Does the PP towpilot have to pay the pro-rated share of the expenses of the tow flight or is that free flight time considered a compensation that a PP is not entitled to?
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any question on that -- the PP tow pilot can legally log the time without paying for it, which is what that rule change was all about (bypassing the "fly but don't log" business discussed in the legal interpretation). However, I believe any other compensation is prohibited.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's what I was referring to earlier. What is now (g) was added specifically in order to reverse the result of this interpretation. The 1995 Federal Register commentary entry for the proposed change says that the change "Permits a private pilot who acts as PIC when towing gliders to log the flight time." This was reconfirmed in the Federal Register commentary for the Final Rule in 1997.
Click to expand...


OK - I've read this post again and seen Cap'n Ron's posts (Thanks, again, all).

How can I find the commentary that you are referring to? I think this will put this whole thing to bed.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't think there's any question on that -- the PP tow pilot can legally log the time without paying for it, which is what that rule change was all about (bypassing the "fly but don't log" business discussed in the legal interpretation). However, I believe any other compensation is prohibited.
Click to expand...

Care to cite a FAR by which that compensation is prohibitted? Seeing that the only FAR prohibiting compensation for PPs is 61.113(a), and (g) is specifically written as an exception thereto?
 
Matthew said:
OK - I've read this post again and seen Cap'n Ron's posts (Thanks, again, all).

How can I find the commentary that you are referring to? I think this will put this whole thing to bed.
Click to expand...
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html

Specifically, go to the "simple search" for 1994 forward. Click on 1995 and search for "61.113(f)" with the quotes (61.113(f) was originally (f))
 
JeffDG said:
Care to cite a FAR by which that compensation is prohibitted? Seeing that the only FAR prohibiting compensation for PPs is 61.113(a), and (g) is specifically written as an exception thereto?
Click to expand...
Don't look at the trees; look at the forest. The whole thrust of Part 91 vs. Parts 119, 121 and 135 and the related parts of Part 61 is separating pilots flying for compensation and operations for compensation from those that aren't, with those being paid for flights or flying held to higher standards of certification, supervision and safety. The addition of 61.113(g) and the official commentary and the overall regulatory context strongly suggest exactly what the FAA intended and what it means.

I'm not a fan of the FAA's "flight time is compensation" BS. But when it comes to real, quantifiable payment, I don't think there's much room to maneuver.

You might be willing to bet your ticket on playing games with the language to find your loophole; I wouldn't. History suggests that most who have in this area of the FAR have failed.
 
Last edited:
I think we should offer John Lynch the chance to "beta" new regs here on the board. If he writes something so unambiguous that we all agree on the meaning, then it's ready for promulgation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top