Pvt Plt Tow Glider For Hire

[jnmeade]

The FAA has issued an opinion on Nov 3 2010, "61.113(g) permits a private pilot to act as PIC for compensation or hire of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle."

The entire message includes some interesting and useful background on the question of flying for compensation or hire and will be interesting reading for anyone considering it. It also comments on the infamous FAQ.


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...interpretations/data/interps/2010/Umphres.pdf

 

[denverpilot]

I get a kick out of the interim period there in-between the opinions where PIC was fine, but you couldn't be compensated, even by logging the time...

Try calling up your insurer...

"Yeah, our tow pilot has zero hours PIC towing and is a Private Pilot, but he's been that way for the last ten years he's been towing us around!"

LOL!

 

[rottydaddy]

I get a kick out of the interim period there in-between the opinions where PIC was fine, but you couldn't be compensated, even by logging the time...

Try calling up your insurer...

"Yeah, our tow pilot has zero hours PIC towing and is a Private Pilot, but he's been that way for the last ten years he's been towing us around!"

LOL!

That concept is just silly... aren't the regs regarding commercial operation designed primarily to discourage unqualified pilots from hiring themselves out to earn a living? Logging time is "compensation", as regards commercial operation? Gimme a break!! I mean, is the fun of flying to be considered "compensation", too?

The twisted, tortuous logic of the FAA never ceases to amaze me.

 

[denverpilot]

The twisted, tortuous logic of the FAA never ceases to amaze me.

It's not so much the FAA as a whole, but of their lawyers... all lawyers, really.

Logic isn't part of their game, it's all about word-smithing to get things "interpreted" the way that you want.

Clear and concise doesn't equate to more billable hours.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

That concept is just silly... aren't the regs regarding commercial operation designed primarily to discourage unqualified pilots from hiring themselves out to earn a living? Logging time is "compensation", as regards commercial operation? Gimme a break!! I mean, is the fun of flying to be considered "compensation", too?

The twisted, tortuous logic of the FAA never ceases to amaze me.

I would blame this one more on the twisted tortuous logic of commercial operators trying to get out of having to pay pilots by offering to let them fly for free to build time while they tow a banner around...

 

[elmetal]

I would blame this one more on the twisted tortuous logic of commercial operators trying to get out of having to pay pilots by offering to let them fly for free to build time while they tow a banner around...

Yep.

That's probably what it is. Laws are written by money, not the public or logic and that's a really sad thing...

 

[Witmo]

The FAA has been pretty consistent about defining "free" flight time as a form of compensation. Soaring enthusiasts lobbied long and hard to get the FAA to give tow piloting an exception to the commercial requirement since many soaring operations relied on volunteers with only a PPSEL (but oftentimes years of experience) to tow for them. The FAA relented and specifically exempted towing sailplanes and ultralights from the rules requiring a commercial license for pilot services receiving compensation. The 2010 clarification confirms that tow pilots can receive compensation with only a private pilot license and the compensation can be anything previously defined as compensation, free flight time, money, good will, whatever. Rather than rail on about how inconsistent or arbitrary the FAA is, I'd say the FAA should be congratulated for doing General Aviation and Soaring in particular a good turn. Without this exemption, some soaring operations would have to severely cut down on their activity and another segment of aviation would suffer further decline.

Chief Tow Pilot for San Antonio Soaring Society

 

[denverpilot]

I, for one, think it's interesting that aviation is one of the only pastimes that doing them and receiving no money in return, is considered "compensation" by law. Must be pretty dang fun.

I know if they passed a law that I couldn't work on other people's computers or telecom networks without a license and that doing so for free also was against the law, because I could log "keyboard time", that'd be downright strange.

 

[rottydaddy]

The FAA has been pretty consistent about defining "free" flight time as a form of compensation. Soaring enthusiasts lobbied long and hard to get the FAA to give tow piloting an exception to the commercial requirement since many soaring operations relied on volunteers with only a PPSEL (but oftentimes years of experience) to tow for them. The FAA relented and specifically exempted towing sailplanes and ultralights from the rules requiring a commercial license for pilot services receiving compensation. The 2010 clarification confirms that tow pilots can receive compensation with only a private pilot license and the compensation can be anything previously defined as compensation, free flight time, money, good will, whatever. Rather than rail on about how inconsistent or arbitrary the FAA is, I'd say the FAA should be congratulated for doing General Aviation and Soaring in particular a good turn. Without this exemption, some soaring operations would have to severely cut down on their activity and another segment of aviation would suffer further decline.

Chief Tow Pilot for San Antonio Soaring Society

I'm not usually inclined to look a gift horse in the mouth, but what's dumb about it (not the earlier exclusion of non-commercial tow pilots towing gliders when money changes hands for a glider ride or lesson, but the new ruling that these tow pilots can be paid directly for their flying) is that it flies in the face of all other commercial-rating rules.

All pilots who still have to get a commercial rating before getting paid (money) to do other kinds of flying would be within their rights to see this as unfair and illogical.

The argument about non-material forms of compensation, despite the cost of flight hours and how that applies to time-building, is not worth the FAA's consideration any more than that of aviation businesses. The FAA shouldn't care if a pilot gets something out of flying other than material compensation, and business owners shouldn't assume that because most pilots like flying and might also want to build hours for some future job, that they shouldn't be paid to fly when said businesses collect money from someone else when that aircraft flies.

But in the end, though, it doesn't matter much as regards tow pilots... the insurance companies see to it that a tow pilot will need to spend plenty of money to get the requisite total time, time in make and model, and the tow endorsement.... much more money, in most cases, than to get the commercial rating.

 

[jnmeade]

the insurance companies see to it that a tow pilot will need to spend plenty of money to get the requisite total time, time in make and model, and the tow endorsement.... much more money, in most cases, than to get the commercial rating.

That is so true. One should try to get on the policy as a named insured rather than to fit under the generic requirements. It can make quite a difference in the time needed.