Private Pilots can be paid to tow gliders

JeffDG

JeffDG

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
17,509
Location
Oak Ridge, TN
Display Name
Display name:
JeffDG
I wonder what the justification is for that.

Ok, now that I read the letter, I can see the justification for that. But it seems to me like they came to the conclusion in a questionable fashion.

Just goes to further my theory that they can violate you for anything at any time.
 
Last edited:
That sure answers a lot of questions, but does bring up the question that Greg asked. I remember a lot of heated arguments about 'for compensation or hire' and whether 'compensation' allowed a PP to log the flights or if that constituted illegal compensation.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Just goes to further my theory that they can violate you for anything at any time.
Click to expand...

This letter furthers my theory that the Chief counsels office hires people who are neither good lawyers, nor familiar with the operative aspects of aviation.
 
If that FAQ would have never been published, a whole lot of hair pulling could have been avoided.
 
Yeah, but I don't think this is a result of an FAQ. The letter is a Chief Counsel ruling, which is as official as it gets.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, but I don't think this is a result of an FAQ. The letter is a Chief Counsel ruling, which is as official as it gets.
Click to expand...


That FAQ led a lot of people down the wrong road. I haven't seen the original letter that SSA sent to the Chief Counsel, but it apparently referenced that FAQ. The letter back from the Chief Counsel mentioned it. Sounds like the Chief Counsel is STILL trying to get the point across that it wasn't from his office.
 
it must just be me but the chief counsel interpretation says the same thing that that reg has said to me every time i've read it. it just seems that a lot of people worry to much about past FAQ's, waivers, etc instead of just reading what is written.
 
I'm going to guess the pilot is being paid for towing, not for flying.
 
tonycondon said:
it must just be me but the chief counsel interpretation says the same thing that that reg has said to me every time i've read it. it just seems that a lot of people worry to much about past FAQ's, waivers, etc instead of just reading what is written.
Click to expand...

Well this is how it is written"

(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...

How do you get that a PP can get compensated, other than the flight time, out of that?
 
I get the impression there is a lot of "wiggle" room in the FARs. By that, I mean wiggle room for the FAA, not the pilot. Everything needs an interpretation, and if you **** off the wrong person on the wrong day, they'll interpret it in a way it works against you....

Example being the recent interpretation (which may be retracted?) about instrument training for the instrument rating not counting toward instrument training required for commercial certificate.

Rewrite in order?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well this is how it is written"
How do you get that a PP can get compensated, other than the flight time, out of that?
Click to expand...

you have to read the whole reg. (g) is an exception to the general rule that PP's cannot be compensated.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Actually the law was INTERPRETED as saying so. It might be semantics, but in my view, there is a difference.
Click to expand...

This is what the law says:

113(a) creates a prohibition with exceptions enumerated under (b) through (g).

§ 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.

Subparagraph (g) states in uncharacteristically clear language that glider towing is one of those exemptions.

(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.

It just seems unusual that the law is actually read as written.
 
weilke said:
It just seems unusual that the law is actually read as written.
Click to expand...

Yeah...When I read it, I thought it was pretty clear that a PP could accept compensation, but I guess there was some dispute.
 
JeffDG said:
Yeah...When I read it, I thought it was pretty clear that a PP could accept compensation, but I guess there was some dispute.
Click to expand...

If I understand it correctly, the law was written that way for a long time but guidance from the FAA including the infamous FSDO-FAQ managed to create confusion about what is legal and what not. So, until the chief counsel issues another contradictory opinion on this, tow pilots can
- tow gliders with the glider pilot paying for the tow
- tow gliders and get actually paid for it.

Now compare that with the logical contortions the same office came up with in the Mangiamele letter you you do remain somewhat puzzled.
 
Seems pretty clear. Compensation can be defined a either/ and-or logging PIC time and/or monetary compensation. It all hinges around compensation as defined as logging PIC time while flying the tow plane. There is no specific discussion of compensation as payment of monies.
 
DutchessFlier said:
Seems pretty clear. Compensation can be defined a either/ and-or logging PIC time and/or monetary compensation. It all hinges around compensation as defined as logging PIC time while flying the tow plane. There is no specific discussion of compensation as payment of monies.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does:
The text of § 61.113(g) does not limit the compensation that a private pilot may receive to only the logging of PIC flight time
Click to expand...
 
That's very interesting.

I wish they'd publish a black-and-white policy on private pilots and aerial photography. From what I can find, the FAA is inconsistent in how the enforce the no-compensation rules in regards to aerial photography.
 
bqmassey said:
That's very interesting.

I wish they'd publish a black-and-white policy on private pilots and aerial photography. From what I can find, the FAA is inconsistent in how the enforce the no-compensation rules in regards to aerial photography.
Click to expand...

How's this one:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...0/interpretations/data/interps/2010/Perry.pdf

As I read this one, if you're a photographer who sometimes does some work from the plane, you're OK. But if you hold yourself out as an aerial photographer, you need a Commercial and 2nd Class. It turns on whether the flying is incidental to the business or not (61.113(b))
 
Last edited:
It's sorta like you are being paid to pull, not to fly.
 
Tom-D said:
It's sorta like you are being paid to pull, not to fly.
Click to expand...

Yes, in the sense that it's an extension of the rule that a non-commercial PP can tow a glider that's piloted by a commercial glider pilot with a paying passenger... but definitely no in the sense that towplane flying isn't flying!

Haven't done it (yet), but I know it ain't easy.

I guess the FAA finds the usual tow pilot endorsement prep to be sufficient for weeding out those who are not "professional" in skill and attitude... even just hauling the rope back and either dropping it or landing with it requires additional skills and consideration, and when bad things happen during a tow, they happen quickly, often low to the ground, and instant and correct judgment is a must for the tow pilot as much as the glider pilot.
 
There have been issues in the past with reimbursing PP for expenses to tow at contests. Not enough available commerical rated tow pilots, and the event organizers were (are) fearful of putting the tow pilot in trouble with the feds by paying for hotel rooms and meals to come and tow.

Now the insurance companies run the show. We all know that. The insurance companies to insure the contest event want Commercial Rated tow pilots. (Liability issues), this is just one step to get the insurance companies to accept PP tow pilots at these events.
 
I'm glad to see some official clarification on this. I've heard the question come up several times and nobody really knew for sure.
 
Here's an interesting twist asked by a commercial glider pilot friend I sent this to. He asks, "what if the glider is carrying passengers for hire?". If non-pilot passengers pay for a glider ride, and there is a commercial pilot flying the glider, can a private pilot tow that glider for compensation?
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Here's an interesting twist asked by a commercial glider pilot friend I sent this to. He asks, "what if the glider is carrying passengers for hire?". If non-pilot passengers pay for a glider ride, and there is a commercial pilot flying the glider, can a private pilot tow that glider for compensation?
Click to expand...

Based on this letter, yes. He's towing, not carrying passengers.

The Glider PIC would need to be commercial, however.
 
JeffDG said:
Based on this letter, yes. He's towing, not carrying passengers.

The Glider PIC would need to be commercial, however.
Click to expand...

And in most cases, a Commercial Glider Ride for hire.. the INSURANCE COMPANY requires the Tow Pilot to hold a commercial rating for the ride companies "commercial" insurance to be in effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top