US FAR 61.113 Private Pilots Towing gliders for compensation.

"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?

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/

"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

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/

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.. 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/

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/

"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

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/

(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/