Sparrowhawk/Apis for rent

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:40411bd3$1@darkstar...

As a side note, 61.113(g) seems to say a PPL is excepted from
restrictions on compensation for glider towing. Hmmm...hadn't seen
that before. Interesting...

61.113(g) says nothing about compensation. That said, you are not the
only one confused on that point and it is covered in the part 61 FAQ
http://www.soaringsafety.org/FAQ_Glider.doc. See below:

Vaughn


"
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: The answer is no, a private pilot may not receive
compensation for towing a glider.



The intent, and the wording of the new §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 new §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 new §61.113(g) was issued to correct it.



However, we agree the wording of the new §61.113(a) may be confusing. In
the next go-around on correcting some of the wording mistakes, we have
recorded it as a candidate for correction to conform the intent and the
wording of §61.113(g).

{q&a-72}"

Vaughn wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:40411bd3$1@darkstar...

As a side note, 61.113(g) seems to say a PPL is excepted from
restrictions on compensation for glider towing. Hmmm...hadn't seen
that before. Interesting...

61.113(g) says nothing about compensation. That said, you are not the
only one confused on that point and it is covered in the part 61 FAQ
http://www.soaringsafety.org/FAQ_Glider.doc. See below:

"
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: The answer is no, a private pilot may not receive
compensation for towing a glider.

The intent, and the wording of the new §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 new §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 new §61.113(g) was issued to correct it.



However, we agree the wording of the new §61.113(a) may be confusing. In
the next go-around on correcting some of the wording mistakes, we have
recorded it as a candidate for correction to conform the intent and the
wording of §61.113(g).

Great catch, Vaughn. The wording DEFINITELY doesn't match the
interpretation. The standards guys really mucked this one up.
The whole section talks about the exceptions of how PPLs
can recieve compensation, except section (G), which is
really just about PIC? I'll tell you, if I was a PPL and
got violated for towing and getting paid, I'd run this laundry up a big
flagpole with the dirty stain AND the author's name on it. ;O

I read a bit more about this, and it seems all this started when a
few clubs were using PPLs to tow gliders. There was some argument
about whether building flight time alone was considered
compensation. So some clubs just had those pilots simply not
log any of the time (so there was "no" benefit). This ran afoul
because these pilots then couldn't log the time to keep tow
currency. So the FAA came back that there should be no other compensation,
except that PIC flight time could be logged by a PPL and that would be
fine.

How this got written as the wording we now find, I have NO idea...
It seems clearer to simply add at the end of (G) ...but may receive no
other compensation or hire...

How hard would that be?

Does anyone else have a better, firsthand account of how this developed?
The Palouse Soaring Society was mentioned in a 1978 and 1990 documents...
Any glider regulation historians out there?






--

------------+

Mark Boyd

listarchives.his.com/dcpilots-l/dcpilots-l.0112/msg00151.html

has an FAQ that seems to be clear...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

The Palouse Soaring Society was mentioned in a 1978 and 1990 documents...

A bit off topic here, but the Palouse Soaring Society doesn't exist anymore,
I wish it did because I would fly a whole lot more. Any lurkers in the
Pullman/Moscow interested in getting a club together PLEASE contact me!

Tim

At 23:00 28 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
At 05:18 27 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
There
are some really creative ideas these guys have that
just don't
pop up in the slightly stiffer glider community. Sure
I think they're
zany (no rigid wing?) but they're fun!!!

Stiff? In a word, illegal!

The gliding community is illegal? Hmmm... where did
THAT
come from. Demos of aircraft by salesmen, seem to
be OK under
61.113 (f).

If you have references making any of this illegal,
let me know and I'll
pass it on to Van's and our local Cirrus and Cezzna
dealer, since they
demo airplanes all the time...


No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
is illegal.

Nyal Williams wrote:
No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
is illegal.

=======
Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate --
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
=======

(1) may be a problem given the precise wording of the ops lims, however,
I don't accept the interpretation that renting an aircraft is "carrying
persons or property for compensation or hire". Can you cite a section
or directive that proves (2) applies to the situation?

Marc

I think Marc is going down the right road here.

I worked for a company that rented a 747-200 to a major engine manufacturer
for a series of experimental flight tests. The 747-200 was placed in
experimental category for 6 days, then returned to Standard.

It was not illegal - and it was very profitable. Note that we did not carry
persons or cargo for compensation or hire. We rented it to these guys and
they flew it for a while, had some fun tinkering with it - but I doubt they
did any thermaling with it.

I think it would be a problem is you tried to sell rides in an experimental
aircraft - but I thought I saw the EAA occasionally using an RV-6 for their
fly a million kids program - non-profit type of deal set up by clever EAA
guys I'm sure.

Jim

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...
Nyal Williams wrote:
No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
is illegal.

=======
Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate --
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
=======

(1) may be a problem given the precise wording of the ops lims, however,
I don't accept the interpretation that renting an aircraft is "carrying
persons or property for compensation or hire". Can you cite a section
or directive that proves (2) applies to the situation?

Marc

Mark James Boyd wrote:


Does anyone else have a better, firsthand account of how this developed?
The Palouse Soaring Society was mentioned in a 1978 and 1990 documents...
Any glider regulation historians out there?

Once upon a time the SSA had an exemption that permitted
towing by Private Pilots at SSA clubs where the pilot could
charge for the tows to cover the costs. The exemption had to
be renewed every two years by the SSA, much like the current
data plate exemption. IIRC, the pilot was prohibited from
logging the time for the purposes of additional ratings but
could recover the actual cost of the tow, including fuel and
maintenance, etc.

In or around 1997 when Part 91 was rewritten, Sec.
61.113(g) was written to eliminate the biannual need for the
exemption renewal which took up unnecessary time and money
from both the FAA and the SSA every two years.

My presumption is that the rule means what its plain
language says, notwithstanding the typically tortured syntax
of FAAspeak.

A few years ago at the Portland SSA convention, this exact
question was pitched to John Lynch of the FAA who had had a
significant hand in the rewrite of Part 61. John's response
was somewhat oblique to the effect that pilots should not
try to infer more than the language says and that if its not
prohibited by the regs, its not prohibited.

61.113 is pretty clear as currently written, even if the FAA
had second thoughts about the regulation change after the fact.

My favorite Bob Wander quote may apply here. With respect to
the FARS,

If it says you can, you can.
If it says you can't you can't.
If it doesn't say, you can.




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

"Jim Phoenix" wrote in message
...
I think Marc is going down the right road here.

I worked for a company that rented a 747-200 to a major engine
manufacturer
for a series of experimental flight tests. The 747-200 was placed in
experimental category for 6 days, then returned to Standard.

It was not illegal - and it was very profitable. Note that we did not
carry
persons or cargo for compensation or hire. We rented it to these guys and
they flew it for a while, had some fun tinkering with it - but I doubt
they
did any thermaling with it.

I think it would be a problem is you tried to sell rides in an
experimental
aircraft - but I thought I saw the EAA occasionally using an RV-6 for
their
fly a million kids program - non-profit type of deal set up by clever EAA
guys I'm sure.

Jim

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...
Nyal Williams wrote:
No, demo is fine, but renting out an experimental
is illegal.

=======
Section 91.319: Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate --
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
=======

(1) may be a problem given the precise wording of the ops lims, however,
I don't accept the interpretation that renting an aircraft is "carrying
persons or property for compensation or hire". Can you cite a section
or directive that proves (2) applies to the situation?

Marc

Renting an experimental is not carrying persons or property for compensation
or hire. I've see at least one commercial operation with an experimental
standard class glider for rent, likely for proficiency flying in preparation
for racing.

Many Young Eagles were flown in experimental aircraft and Phillips 66
contributed about $1/gal to the cause for some time. Not a compensation
flight.

Frank Whiteley

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:403e8a7d$1@darkstar...
In article BYt%b.12220$qL1.6511@fed1read02,
Gill Couto wrote:
If I could add a few words about another good way for manufacturers to
gain exposure that is very common in the foot-launched world of hang
gliders, it's yearly manufacturer demo days.

Hang glider manufacturers meet several times a year at well-known hang
gliding sites for 2-3 days to give many pilots the opportunity to test
fly their latest HG models, all at no charge. This is one of the most
successful ways for HG manufacters to gain customers. It's always the
most popular event of the year for HG in Arizona.

But, since sailplanes easily last decades, the market is probably much
less active than the HG market, where many pilots trade their hang
gliders every 2-4 years, or every year for many competition pilots.
Exposure is good, but if it doesn't lead to more sales, it's no more
than an extra expense for the manufacturers.

gill
www.gillcouto.com/hg

See! This is why I think the SSA (and others) should mix more with
the parachute, ultralight, and hang gliding community. There
are some really creative ideas these guys have that just don't
pop up in the slightly stiffer glider community. Sure I think they're
zany (no rigid wing?) but they're fun!!!

They don't mix with each other much either. The HG and Parasailing
communities are merging and now debating name of the resulting organization,
future insurance, publications, and so on.

The Air Expo theme at the SSA is an attempt to provide a venue for these
other activities. Very little participation this year.

Frank Whiteley