![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
FA: Huge collection of Private Pilot Books | mablacksv | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 1st 04 06:40 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |