US FAR 61.113 Private Pilots Towing gliders for compensation.

[Jackal]

Does anyone have or know of a place to find a valid interprtaion of
61.113? Can a US Private Pilot legaly tow a glider for compensation?

[Tim Shea]

Jackal wrote:
> Does anyone have or know of a place to find a valid interprtaion of
> 61.113? Can a US Private Pilot legaly tow a glider for compensation?
>
No.

[BTIZ]

From the FAA FAQ File, Revision #20, April 6, 2004.
QUESTION: I have reviewed your question in which you asked whether a private
pilot may receive compensation while towing gliders, in accordance with the
new § 61.113(g).

ANSWER: Ref. § 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).

"Jackal" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does anyone have or know of a place to find a valid interprtaion of
> 61.113? Can a US Private Pilot legaly tow a glider for compensation?
>

[BTIZ]

"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?

[Pete Brown]

You are reading something into the regulations which they do
not say.

61.69 clearly says that private pilots, subject to certain
requirements for training and experience, may tow gliders.
The issue of compensation is not addressed at all in this part.

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/

[Vaughn]

"Pete Brown" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> FAA inspectors are bound by the language, not whether they
> agree with or like the regulation.

Insurance companies are another matter.

Vaughn

[Brian]

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

True but they have almost as much difficultying understanding it at we
do. And if they think you are in violation of the rule they are
obligated to cite you for it.

My best advice on the issue is that before doing it, Get friendly with
you local FSDO and see what thier interpretation of it is. After all
they are the ones that will or will not have an issue with it.

Generally, If you are not recieving any type of monetary compensation
(Cash, Trading for Flight Time or instruction, etc), or Towing for any
type of comercial operation or using the Flight time to build
experience toward a rating then go ahead and do it. Otherwise a phone
call the the FSDO may keep you out of hot water. Or at least thier
perception of hot water.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Pete Brown]

Completely correct. The insurance companies can impose
further restrictions as a condition of coverage but the
question was whether the FARS permit a Pvt. pilot to tow for
compensation, not whether the insurance will cover such an
operation.

Pete

Vaughn wrote:
> "Pete Brown" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>FAA inspectors are bound by the language, not whether they
>>agree with or like the regulation.
>
>
> Insurance companies are another matter.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>

--

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

[BTIZ]

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]

BT:

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


hmmm. ...you caused me to reread this for the umpteenth time.

Section 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.


We agree on (a).. Pvt. pilot can not act as PIC in acft
carrying passengers or property for hire or otherwise act as
PIC except as provided...

61.113(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.

I am still stuck on the fact that if the FAA meant that a
Pvt. pilot could tow per 61.69 but that that he could not be
compensated, there would have been no reason to add (g).
61.69 would permit towing by a Pvt. pilot and 61.113(a)
would have denied compensation for towing by a Pvt. pilot.
End of subject.

But they didn't write it that way. They added (g) as an
exception to 61.113(a) which refers only to the prohibitions
against acting as PIC when carrying passengers or property
for hire or otherwise operating an aircraft as PIC.

Don't you just love these easy to understand regulations? I
posed this very question to Bob Wander this last weekend at
out CFIG refresher clinic and he said he would look into it.
When I hear from him, I will post a note here.

On the bigger issue, what justifiable public purpose is
served by denying qualified private pilots from towing for
compensation? I don't see any in the accident stats and the
original purpose of the prohibition was to limit economic
competition for commercial pilots under the FAA's "foster
air commerce " clause. Safety was not the issue.

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.)

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/

[Greg Arnold]

(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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

[Vaughn]

"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

[Judy Ruprecht]

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/
>
>
>
>

[Pete Brown]

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/

[Mark James Boyd]

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

[Vaughn]

"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/
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

> 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

[Mark James Boyd]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Today we picked up what the US Glider Flying Handbook
describes as a "wench."

I've never owned a wench before. Well, she's a

Larry's Welding
Gehrlein Winch
Model 62 Serial#14

She's a model! From the first looks of her, we decided to name her
Rusty.

She hasn't had any action in 15 years, so we had a bit of a
hard time getting the parts moving properly. Might
need quite a bit of work. Too early to tell about the engine,
but the rest is absolutely marvelous. Seeing the intricasies
of this machine today gave so much more detail than
just reading about it or even pictures. The tensiometer, the
way the guillotine was set up, the rollers, really this is something
neat.

The amount of sheer metal and heft was something I hadn't expected.
And the way the thing is balanced and framed is quite sturdy.

It may end up as something we can't get to run for launching,
If not, it certainly would look nice with some paint
at one of the local museums. We'll see how it goes.

In the meantime, if anyone else has a similar "model,"
we'd love to trade photos... :)

> wrote:
>I believe it's only legal in Nevada to invest in wenches!;)
>Almost springtime!
>Larry
--

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

[F.L. Whiteley]

you might want to join http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=winchdesign

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41f327a3$1@darkstar...
> Today we picked up what the US Glider Flying Handbook
> describes as a "wench."
>
> I've never owned a wench before. Well, she's a
>
> Larry's Welding
> Gehrlein Winch
> Model 62 Serial#14
>
> She's a model! From the first looks of her, we decided to name her
> Rusty.
>
> She hasn't had any action in 15 years, so we had a bit of a
> hard time getting the parts moving properly. Might
> need quite a bit of work. Too early to tell about the engine,
> but the rest is absolutely marvelous. Seeing the intricasies
> of this machine today gave so much more detail than
> just reading about it or even pictures. The tensiometer, the
> way the guillotine was set up, the rollers, really this is something
> neat.
>
> The amount of sheer metal and heft was something I hadn't expected.
> And the way the thing is balanced and framed is quite sturdy.
>
> It may end up as something we can't get to run for launching,
> If not, it certainly would look nice with some paint
> at one of the local museums. We'll see how it goes.
>
> In the meantime, if anyone else has a similar "model,"
> we'd love to trade photos... :)
>
> > wrote:
> >I believe it's only legal in Nevada to invest in wenches!;)
> >Almost springtime!
> >Larry
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd