Another legality question - this time, towpilots

It's really not even that easy. I corresponded with Lynch recently about a discrepancy between one of the reg changes and the explanatory material in the Federal Register. He said they were still correcting errors the day before publication and some still came through. That's what corrective amendments are about.
 
JeffDG said:
Care to cite a FAR by which that compensation is prohibitted? Seeing that the only FAR prohibiting compensation for PPs is 61.113(a), and (g) is specifically written as an exception thereto?
Click to expand...

And round and round we go...

I like Ron's explanation the best... The rule says "may not act as PIC for compensation" and "may not log PIC time" and (g) excepts tow pilots from the "may not log PIC time" but not from the other. It's just worded very poorly.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And round and round we go...

I like Ron's explanation the best... The rule says "may not act as PIC for compensation" and "may not log PIC time" and (g) excepts tow pilots from the "may not log PIC time" but not from the other. It's just worded very poorly.
Click to expand...

I hate to wade back into this, but that is not what it 61.113 (a) says. You have both the prohibitions of (a) wrong, and the allowance of (g) wrong. In my, ummm, humble opinion.:D

(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.

So, (a)'s prohibitions are:
1) PP can't act as PIC if aircraft is FCOH
"act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire"

2) PP can't act as PIC if pilot is FCOH
"nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft"

Now, for (g) we have:

(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.

This statement does not delineate between (1) or (2).

If it did, it might say something like: A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing, for compensation of hire, a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

That would be an allowance of only (1) above. An allowance for (2) would be something like: A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act, for compensation or hire, as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

But, it doesn't specifically allow only (1) or (2). As it doesn't specify, it allows both.

Tim
 
Tim's interpretation is contrary to what the FAA wrote in the Federal Register in the preamble to the insertion of paragraph (g). The Chief Counsel tends to take that preamble very seriously. Caveat aviator.
 
is it really reasonable to expect the average pilot to dig through the federal register and an obsolete FAQ file that is not publicly available from the FAA any longer to figure out what side of the bed the FAA woke up on the morning that they wrote the reg? Or is it more reasonable to expect the average pilot to just read the FAR as written and believe that it actually means what it says?
 
Ron, can you explain to me where my understanding of either/both (a)and/or(g) goes awry?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but I'd like to know both why I'm wrong - and how I read the FAR incorrectly.

I try to be a prepared pilot, but I fly by what is written in the FAR's. I don't think it is reasonable to say that one would have to dig to the level of "what the FAA wrote in the Federal Register in the preamble to the insertion of paragraph (g)." to find the true meaning of what is clearly written.

Tim

Ron Levy said:
Tim's interpretation is contrary to what the FAA wrote in the Federal Register in the preamble to the insertion of paragraph (g). The Chief Counsel tends to take that preamble very seriously. Caveat aviator.
Click to expand...
 
tonycondon said:
is it really reasonable to expect the average pilot to dig through the federal register and an obsolete FAQ file that is not publicly available from the FAA any longer to figure out what side of the bed the FAA woke up on the morning that they wrote the reg? Or is it more reasonable to expect the average pilot to just read the FAR as written and believe that it actually means what it says?
Click to expand...
That's a question you'll have to ask Randy Babbitt.
 
Troska said:
Ron, can you explain to me where my understanding of either/both (a)and/or(g) goes awry?
Click to expand...
As Mark pointed out, the Federal Register posting labled this as being a change to allow logging the time. Beyond that, I've already covered the logic behind my interpretation above.
I try to be a prepared pilot, but I fly by what is written in the FAR's. I don't think it is reasonable to say that one would have to dig to the level of "what the FAA wrote in the Federal Register in the preamble to the insertion of paragraph (g)." to find the true meaning of what is clearly written.
Click to expand...
Clearly, from this discussion, it's not "clearly written." As for the reasonableness, you'll have to take that up with Randy Babbitt.
 
Ron Levy said:
Beyond that, I've already covered the logic behind my interpretation above.
Click to expand...

What you wrote as your interpretation is below:

Ron Levy said:
<snip because the paragraphs didn't come through on the quote>

Note that paragraph (a) contains not one, but two prohibitions -- acting as PIC, and receiving compensation. Paragraph (g) appears to exempt the PP tow pilot from the first prohibition (acting as PIC), but not from the second (receiving compensation). Given what it says in the FAQ file, I would expect an FAA Inspector to act on that basis, and initiate an enforcement action citing 61.113(a) if s/he finds a PP receiving monetary compensation for acting as a tow pilot rather than just acting as PIC without pay. Therefore, unless/until an FAA Counsel says otherwise, I would consider it highly imprudent for a PP to accept compensation other than loggable time for towing a glider.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't see how you read that the two prohibitions in (a) are 1)acting as PIC and 2)receiving compensation. Since you won't explain to me how my understanding:

1) PP can't act as PIC if aircraft is FCOH
"act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire"

2) PP can't act as PIC if pilot is FCOH
"nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft"

is incorrect, and I am not about to tell you how to parse out the FAR's,:D I'll just accept that we are not going to come to an agreement.

Ron Levy said:
As Mark pointed out, the Federal Register posting labled this as being a change to allow logging the time. <snip-o>
Clearly, from this discussion, it's not "clearly written."
Click to expand...

That is what is somewhat surprising to me. In my opinion, it is clearly, if liberally written IF one reads the FAR for what it is. Once one tries to understand the FAR by interpreting in information from other sources (FAQ, Federal Register), it becomes confusing and in some cases conflicting.

Ron Levy said:
As for the reasonableness, you'll have to take that up with Randy Babbitt.
Click to expand...

I won't have to. I choose to utilize what (g) allows me as a PP in a manner more conservative than I could as it is written.

I guess I'm finished with this topic as it is all academic anyway. I haven't seen a clear, reasoned explanation as to how my interpretation of what we as pilots are told to use as guidance is incorrect.

Tim
 
Troska said:
I guess I just don't see how you read that the two prohibitions in (a) are 1)acting as PIC and 2)receiving compensation. Since you won't explain to me how my understanding:

1) PP can't act as PIC if aircraft is FCOH
"act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire"

2) PP can't act as PIC if pilot is FCOH
"nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft"

is incorrect,
Click to expand...
It's not. And, based on both my readying of the reg and the title of the reg change in the NPRM, paragraph (g) only appears to me to cover acting as PIC when someone's paying for the tow and logging the time, but not receiving pay for flying the tow plane. Do you disagree with that?
 
Troska said:
I hate to wade back into this, but that is not what it 61.113 (a) says. You have both the prohibitions of (a) wrong, and the allowance of (g) wrong. In my, ummm, humble opinion.:D

(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.

So, (a)'s prohibitions are:
1) PP can't act as PIC if aircraft is FCOH
"act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire"

2) PP can't act as PIC if pilot is FCOH
"nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft"
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll buy that. Good explanation. Too bad the FAA couldn't word it that well. :frown2:



Now, for (g) we have:

(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.

This statement does not delineate between (1) or (2).

If it did, it might say something like: A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing, for compensation of hire, a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

That would be an allowance of only (1) above. An allowance for (2) would be something like: A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act, for compensation or hire, as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

But, it doesn't specifically allow only (1) or (2). As it doesn't specify, it allows both.
Click to expand...

Now there, I still disagree, assuming you're saying it's OK for the PP to get paid. Starting from the beginning, a PP cannot be PIC if either the plane or the pilot is FCOH. Then we read (g), which says "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." It does NOT say "(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command, for compensation or hire, of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle."

May act as pilot in command. Doesn't say that it's now OK to get paid. :nono:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Okay, I'll buy that. Good explanation. Too bad the FAA couldn't word it that well. :frown2:




Now there, I still disagree, assuming you're saying it's OK for the PP to get paid. Starting from the beginning, a PP cannot be PIC if either the plane or the pilot is FCOH. Then we read (g), which says "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." It does NOT say "(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command, for compensation or hire, of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle."

May act as pilot in command. Doesn't say that it's now OK to get paid. :nono:
Click to expand...

If you start from a basic assumption of regulation: "that which is not expressly prohibited is permitted". then (g) does not have to permit "compensation or hire", because (a) specifically states that the prohibition against compensation or hire does not apply to (g). That said, there is now no prohibition against compensation or hire.
 
JeffDG said:
If you start from a basic assumption of regulation: "that which is not expressly prohibited is permitted". then (g) does not have to permit "compensation or hire", because (a) specifically states that the prohibition against compensation or hire does not apply to (g). That said, there is now no prohibition against compensation or hire.
Click to expand...

Disagree - A says that you cannot act FCOH and to read G as the exception, and G only says you can act as pilot in command, not that you can do it for compensation or hire.

That said, this is all a pointless exercise because it's what the FAA thinks, not what we think, that matters. Does anyone really believe that the FAA thinks that paying a PP to tow gliders is OK?
 
Ron Levy said:
It's not. And, based on both my readying of the reg and the title of the reg change in the NPRM, paragraph (g) only appears to me to cover acting as PIC when someone's paying for the tow and logging the time, but not receiving pay for flying the tow plane. Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

I think that is where we disagree. I can't read (g) in a way to see where it allows only one or the other.

If I may, this section of (g): "...may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider..." doesn't say which is allowable for FCOH (towpilot or towplane), nor does it say what is allowable compensation.

What I would think it was intended to allow is the PP receiving compensation in the form of his/her pro-rata share of the flight. I doubt they intended for a PP to be able to be paid for the flight.

Thanks for picking through this, and finding where we aren't coming to an understanding.

Tim
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Disagree - A says that you cannot act FCOH and to read G as the exception, and G only says you can act as pilot in command, not that you can do it for compensation or hire.

That said, this is all a pointless exercise because it's what the FAA thinks, not what we think, that matters. Does anyone really believe that the FAA thinks that paying a PP to tow gliders is OK?
Click to expand...

Actually (g) says you can act as PIC, without any form of restriction as to whether it's for compensation or hire or not. It completely bypasses the restrictions in (a).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It does NOT say "(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of 61.69 may act as a pilot in command, for compensation or hire, of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle."

May act as pilot in command. Doesn't say that it's now OK to get paid. :nono:
Click to expand...
-and-
flyingcheesehead said:
Disagree - A says that you cannot act FCOH and to read G as the exception, and G only says you can act as pilot in command, not that you can do it for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...

That is the whole point. If a PP meets the requirements of 61.69, they can act as PIC already. 61.113 (g) just allows FCOH!

flyingcheesehead said:
That said, this is all a pointless exercise because it's what the FAA thinks, not what we think, that matters. Does anyone really believe that the FAA thinks that paying a PP to tow gliders is OK?
Click to expand...

Yes - BUT I think they meant for it to be in the form of a PP's pro-rata share of the flight/log the time PIC. Let me give a series of examples.

1) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with my own aircraft out of the goodness of my heart, log the time PIC. I can do this without 61.113 (g).

2) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, pay for the flight, and log the time PIC. I can do this without 61.113 (g).

3) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, not pay for the flight, and not log the time PIC. I can do this without 61.113 (g).

4) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, not pay for the flight, and log the time PIC. For this I need 61.113 (g).

4) is what 61.113 (g) allows. You are a PP acting as PIC on a flight for which you (the pilot) are receiving compensation. It also applies when the other half of (a) comes into play as Ron shows above a few posts above where a PP can do the tow, acting as PIC if the tow itself is FCOH.

Tim
 
Ahh, FARs. Gotta love 'em.

This whole thing started when another PP and I, each from different clubs, e-mailed each other. That e-mail got started because of discussions about gilder pilots from each of our clubs club getting tows from the other.

Both of us thought this would be a simple, yes/no question. I think it's pretty common that a towpilot that belongs to a club, that tows club members, does NOT pay anything out-of-pocket for the flight, does not get paid for the flight, and DOES get to log the hours. The PP towpilot, being a club member, is already paying dues that help defray the cost of the tow flight. That seems to be a pretty simple situation - a club member, flying a club plane, for club purposes, not for compensation or hire. (NOTE: Our club policy is that for demo flights we use commercial pilots because we ARE charging a non-club member for the flight even though the pilot is not getting paid. I think that's our policy because of insurance as well as FARs.)

It would have, and should have, been simple if it had not been for that FAQ that says otherwise - that the towpilot actually IS getting paid with loggable flight time even though it is legal for the towpilot to log that time and therefore should be commercial or not log the hours at all.

I've asked the question, and I think Tony has too - how much due diligence is required on a pilot's part to not only read the regs and follow the regs, but also to mind-read the FAA intention of the regs by sorting through old CFR opinions and FAQs that are no longer publicly available but which might or might not still be in use internally?

This has been a good learning experience for me. I have found FAA websites that I never knew existed, and also gotten some of the background on how the regs are written.
 
Matthew said:
I've asked the question, and I think Tony has too - how much due diligence is required on a pilot's part to not only read the regs and follow the regs, but also to mind-read the FAA intention of the regs by sorting through old CFR opinions and FAQs that are no longer publicly available but which might or might not still be in use internally?
Click to expand...
And don't forget that the FAA can decide to make an interpretation for the very first time when it decides you did something it doesn't like and wants to lift your certificate, so long as the interpretation is not completely unreasonable.

For better or for worse, although many of us have chose aviation as a recreational avocation, we've also managed to choose one that is heavily regulated and we're subject to the same level of knowledge about the rules that apply to us as anyone else engaging any any other regulatory activity.

So when, in explaining a rule change in a public document, the FAA says that the change "Permits a private pilot who acts as PIC when towing gliders to log the flight time," we are not only supposed to know about it but take the FAA at its word, despite how badly it was written.
 
Well I thought there was something on the SSA web site regarding 61.113, but I have yet to find it. I think it may be useful to see what the SSA has to say about this since they were primarily responsible for getting the exemption in the first place. Maybe we can corner someone from the SSA in little rock in a few weeks.
 
vontresc said:
Well I thought there was something on the SSA web site regarding 61.113, but I have yet to find it. I think it may be useful to see what the SSA has to say about this since they were primarily responsible for getting the exemption in the first place. Maybe we can corner someone from the SSA in little rock in a few weeks.
Click to expand...


That actually sounds like a good idea. I was looking at the SSA website over the weekend about this item, too. Might want to corner them in a quiet corner, though, and not in an auditorium. The whole sleeping dogs thing that someone already mentioned.
 
So matt you coming down to Little Rock? I bet you could hitch a ride with the Condon's...
 
No, not going to make it. I wasn't planning on going anyway, so I don't know any of the details about when/where/how long. I'll have to look it up.

Besides, Tony'll just make me sit in the back in one of those Hannibal Lecter masks.
 
so far we've got room for the drive. it'd be nice if you can drive a 5 speed. no weird masks required, but goofy hats are encouraged!
 
huh - Yeah I can drive a 5-speed. Don't know what qualifies as a goofy hat, though. Most folks look at me like I'm goofy whether or not I wear a hat.

I guess we could pass the time arguing 61.113(g).
 
TMetzinger said:
And identifying areas where what the FAA says can be misunderstood.
Click to expand...

It's too bad it's always possible to mis-read and mis-interpret the FARs, even when you are trying to do the right, honest thing.

I do have trouble with the idea that there are documents, hidden from us, that define the FARs differently than a plain reading. I guess that's just the price I have to pay to be a pilot.

The legal column in the AOPA magazine each month also brings up a lot of gotchas.

"We're from the FAA and we're here to help"
 
Matthew said:
It's too bad it's always possible to mis-read and mis-interpret the FARs, even when you are trying to do the right, honest thing.

I do have trouble with the idea that there are documents, hidden from us, that define the FARs differently than a plain reading. I guess that's just the price I have to pay to be a pilot.

The legal column in the AOPA magazine each month also brings up a lot of gotchas.

"We're from the FAA and we're here to help"
Click to expand...

Well, in the legal column, they typically choose the "oddball" rulings and cases - it helps get your blood pressure up and generate loyalty to AOPA. I think they copied this trick from the NRA (and yes I do belong to both groups).

I am also frustrated that the FAA can't seem to write rules that users can understand. But this is NOTHING compared to other areas of federal regulation. The tax code is much much worse.

And hey! We can't even get a clear cut meaning out of some of the amendments in the Constitution!
 
TMetzinger said:
Well, in the legal column, they typically choose the "oddball" rulings and cases - it helps get your blood pressure up and generate loyalty to AOPA. I think they copied this trick from the NRA (and yes I do belong to both groups).

I am also frustrated that the FAA can't seem to write rules that users can understand. But this is NOTHING compared to other areas of federal regulation. The tax code is much much worse.

And hey! We can't even get a clear cut meaning out of some of the amendments in the Constitution!
Click to expand...


I understand about the "oddball rulings", but this whole thread was about something that should be a no-brainer.

Regarding the Constitutional amendments comment - tread carefully!
 
Troska said:
-and-


That is the whole point. If a PP meets the requirements of 61.69, they can act as PIC already. 61.113 (g) just allows FCOH!



Yes - BUT I think they meant for it to be in the form of a PP's pro-rata share of the flight/log the time PIC. Let me give a series of examples.

1) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with my own aircraft out of the goodness of my heart, log the time PIC. I can do this without 61.113 (g).

2) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, pay for the flight, and log the time PIC. I can do this without 61.113 (g).

3) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, not pay for the flight, and not log the time PIC. I can do this without 61.113 (g).

4) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, not pay for the flight, and log the time PIC. For this I need 61.113 (g).

4) is what 61.113 (g) allows. You are a PP acting as PIC on a flight for which you (the pilot) are receiving compensation. It also applies when the other half of (a) comes into play as Ron shows above a few posts above where a PP can do the tow, acting as PIC if the tow itself is FCOH.
Click to expand...

I agree that 4) is correct - What I think we're talking about is:

5) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, get paid for the flight, and log the time PIC. For this I need to think I know better than the FAA and that they think a commercial operation is okay for a private pilot. :rolleyes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I agree that 4) is correct - What I think we're talking about is:

5) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, get paid for the flight, and log the time PIC. For this I need to think I know better than the FAA and that they think a commercial operation is okay for a private pilot. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead,

I want to respond to this with a statement and a question to you:

a) I certainly don't participate in (5), nor would I recommend anyone else, nor would I want a clarification from the Chief Counsel - but the way they wrote the regulation allows it.

and

b) What is the difference between these two:
(4) pilot logging the time and not paying their pro-rata share of the flight
(5) pilot logging the time and simply getting paid?

Tim
 
flyingcheesehead said:
5) I'm a PP. I meet 61.69. I want to tow gliders with a glider club aircraft, get paid for the flight, and log the time PIC.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm talking about, and that's what I think crosses the FAA's line beyond what's allowed by paragraph (g). That's based on my own reading of the rules, past FAA interpretations, and the NPRM preamble quoted by Mark. If the FAA catches you crossing that line, I think you're likely to lose your license. Choose wisely unless/until you get an FAA Chief Counsel opinion which says it's also OK to be paid.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's what I'm talking about, and that's what I think crosses the FAA's line beyond what's allowed by paragraph (g). That's based on my own reading of the rules, past FAA interpretations, and the NPRM preamble quoted by Mark. If the FAA catches you crossing that line, I think you're likely to lose your license. Choose wisely unless/until you get an FAA Chief Counsel opinion which says it's also OK to be paid.
Click to expand...

Ron,

Can you cite a Chief Counsel's opinion that used the "intent" in the NPRM as a reason?

Where in (g) does it provide any restriction against charging money for tows? Only in (a) is there such a restriction, and you're not flying under (a).
 
Ron Levy said:
That's what I'm talking about, and that's what I think crosses the FAA's line beyond what's allowed by paragraph (g). That's based on my own reading of the rules, past FAA interpretations, and the NPRM preamble quoted by Mark. If the FAA catches you crossing that line, I think you're likely to lose your license. Choose wisely unless/until you get an FAA Chief Counsel opinion which says it's also OK to be paid.
Click to expand...


I think, in addition to all the particulars in the FARs and Chief Counsel opinions, there is always the smell test.
 
JeffDG said:
Ron,

Can you cite a Chief Counsel's opinion that used the "intent" in the NPRM as a reason?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you'd be satisfied with but I'll lay odds that he can easily find Chief Counsel opinions that cite a NPRM or Final Rule extensively in an interpretive letter.

If he has access, he can also cite all sorts of federal and state appelate court cases, all the way to the US Supreme Court, that say that legislative or regulatory history is a primary guide to the interpretation of a law or regulation.

Of course, for the Chief Counsel, he doesn't really have to go that far. All he has to do is interpret it whatever way he wants, so long as the interpretation is in some way supported by the regulatory language, it will be upheld.

Notice, Ron isn't suggesting that the Chief Counsel might not decide, "sure, go ahead and get paid a couple of thousand working as a pilot with only a private certificate." Just that given the history of the exception, that one might think it a good idea to check before potentially laying one's certificate on the line.
 
Last edited:
geoff, i ran across those too when researching this subject. neither of them address the situation where the private pilot is getting paid.
 
wow.

I've learned more about how to reference and research FARs than I ever thought I would.

Thanks for all the information, and pointing out the search methods used. All that is going to be something to be stored away for future use.

Thanks,
Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top