Another legality question - this time, towpilots

[Matthew]

I know we have a number of glider pilots on this board, and more than a few legal/technical types.

Something came up recently, and I'm curious. This is a combination of insurance technicalities and FAA legalities.

A towpilot does not need a commercial ticket (I think, but am not sure, that our club insurance requires a commercial).

If a private pilot performs towpilot duties in a club-owned towplane, without financial reimbursement (we do not pay our towpilots, they are members of the club), does the towpilot have to pay for the expenses of the flight?

This question was posed by a member of another club - the worry is that unless the private pilot pays for the expenses of the flight, then he is being reimbursed for his services with 'free' flight time and then would need a commercial ticket to prevent being in violation of FAA regs.

Anyone run across this before?

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[tonycondon]

matt,

the regs were recently changed on this. towing gliders is one of the exceptions to the compensation rule now. i.e. its OK for private pilots to tow.

 

[tonycondon]

§ 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.
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.
(e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and control of:
(1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or
(2) An organization that conducts search and location operations.
(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer.
(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.

Note section (g)

 

[Matthew]

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.



Note section (g)

Thanks, Tony. I had to read section (a) several times:

>>>

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.

...

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'll paraphrase:

(a) says PP can not act as PIC for compensation or hire (the 'free' hours could count as compensation), UNLESS (g) PIC of a towplane.

I think that clears it up for me.

Thanks,
Matt

 

[JeffDG]

Oops...as Tony noted, my copy is dated.

 

[JeffDG]

Thanks, Tony. I had to read section (a) several times:

>>>

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.

...

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'll paraphrase:

(a) says PP can not act as PIC for compensation or hire (the 'free' hours could count as compensation), UNLESS (g) PIC of a towplane.

I think that clears it up for me.

Thanks,
Matt

Bingo...

Note also, that the exception in (g) is very broad. It does not, for instance, require pro-rata sharing of expenses. It does not even limit the PP to expenses only compensation (ie. a PP can accept cash+flight time for towing).

 

[tonycondon]

Jeff, I'm not sure where you got that reg but it is out of date. Part of the Pt. 61 rewrite that went into effect last summer was to change the towpilot currency from 12 months to 24 calendar months.

§ 61.69 Glider and unpowered ultralight vehicle towing: Experience and training requirements.

(a) No person may act as pilot in command for towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle unless that person—
(1) Holds a private, commercial or airline transport pilot certificate with a category rating for powered aircraft;
(2) Has logged at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the aircraft category, class and type, if required, that the pilot is using to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle;
(3) Has a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies that the person has received ground and flight training in gliders or unpowered ultralight vehicles and is proficient in—
(i) The techniques and procedures essential to the safe towing of gliders or unpowered ultralight vehicles, including airspeed limitations;
(ii) Emergency procedures;
(iii) Signals used; and
(iv) Maximum angles of bank.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, has logged at least three flights as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft while towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle, or has simulated towing flight procedures in an aircraft while accompanied by a pilot who meets the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, has received a logbook endorsement from the pilot, described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, certifying that the person has accomplished at least 3 flights in an aircraft while towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle, or while simulating towing flight procedures; and
(6) Within 24 calendar months before the flight has—
(i) Made at least three actual or simulated tows of a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle while accompanied by a qualified pilot who meets the requirements of this section; or
(ii) Made at least three flights as pilot in command of a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle towed by an aircraft.
(b) Any person who, before May 17, 1967, has made and logged 10 or more flights as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with a certificate of waiver need not comply with paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section.
(c) The pilot, described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, who endorses the logbook of a person seeking towing privileges must have—
(1) Met the requirements of this section prior to endorsing the logbook of the person seeking towing privileges; and
(2) Logged at least 10 flights as pilot in command of an aircraft while towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.
(d) If the pilot described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section holds only a private pilot certificate, then that pilot must have—
(1) Logged at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in airplanes, or 200 hours of pilot-in-command time in a combination of powered and other-than-powered aircraft; and
(2) Performed and logged at least three flights within the 12 calendar months preceding the month that pilot accompanies or endorses the logbook of a person seeking towing privileges—
(i) In an aircraft while towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle accompanied by another pilot who meets the requirements of this section; or
(ii) As pilot in command of a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle being towed by another aircraft.

 

[Matthew]

I'm attaching a PDF. It's a FAQ about 61.113.

I don't know if it's outdated or not, but I just got it from the guy who's been asking the questions.

The highlited areas are the pertinent sections. This document seems to indicate that a PP acting as a towpilot should have to pay for the flight or is being illegally compensated.

Maybe the currently written 61.113 voids this FAQ, but here it is anyway.

Is there a newer set of interpretions out there that I can pass along back to the guy I've been talking to?


edit: It seems like there are some questions in that FAQ and from the pilot I've been talking to about whether 'acting as PIC' is legal, where 'logging PIC' may be considered an improper compensation.

 

[tonycondon]

i assume that is from John Lynch's old FAQ, which was based on the 1998 part 61 revision (I think) and has since been removed from the FAA website.

The reg I quoted was updated in August 2009. Most pilots don't open a FAR very often, let alone since August last year, and probably aren't aware of the change.

 

[Matthew]

i assume that is from John Lynch's old FAQ, which was based on the 1998 part 61 revision (I think) and has since been removed from the FAA website.

The reg I quoted was updated in August 2009. Most pilots don't open a FAR very often, let alone since August last year, and probably aren't aware of the change.

The date on the FAQ is July 22, 2005. I just picked up my 2010 copy of the FAR and I'll look at it later tonight, but I'm pretty sure the version I looked at earlier today, on the FAA website, is the latest.

 

[TMetzinger]

FAA website is almost always the most current. And John Lynch's FAQ gives a good sense about what the intent of that particular rewrite was about, but the Chief Counsel has ruled that what he wrote in more than a few cases is not what he intended. So the FAQ should be taken with a teaspoon, not a grain, of salt.

 

[poadeleted20]

IIRC, the FAA Counsel said this rule means a PP can act as a tow pilot when the towees are paying the club for the tow, but it does not mean the PP tow pilot can be paid money for doing the towing. Anyone know for sure?

 

[tonycondon]

Ron for some reason I thought that was an interpretation on the previous reg, but maybe not. What you say and what the reg says are two different things for sure.

 

[TMetzinger]

while subpara (g) makes it clear that a PP can tow a glider, it does NOT say (unlike section (b)) that he can do so for compensation or hire. So I'm inclined to be conservative and say that the PP can fly the airplane and log the time, but he can't get paid for it.

 

[Matthew]

IIRC, the FAA Counsel said this rule means a PP can act as a tow pilot when the towees are paying the club for the tow, but it does not mean the PP tow pilot can be paid money for doing the towing. Anyone know for sure?

Ron - the main question I have is not "can a PP be a towpilot", that seems clear. The question is "must a PP that is a towpilot pay the expenses of the flight". The FAR seems to indicate he doesn't have to pay anything, but the included FAQ seems to indicate otherwise.

I hope to, somewhere, see a definitive ruling.

Thanks,
Matt

 

[Matthew]

I just got this e-mail from the pilot I've been talking with:

>>>

I think you’ll find the FAQs and answers pretty straightforward. I didn’t even know such a document existed until I asked a faculty member in Central Missouri’s aviation department what his opinion on the subject of towing for free was. He looked at the same section 61.113 and concluded that it was ok. Then he asked other faculty and they also concluded it was ok. Then he asked an FAA examiner friend who checked the FAQs and concluded it was not ok. When the faculty member read the FAQs he changed his opinion, too. So I’ll be surprised if you read the FAQs and conclude anything other than “it’s not ok”. I know if I ever get into another club I will insist on being charged for tow plane usage if I do any towing.

The other side of the coin is apparently the FAA doesn’t do any nosing around to see if anyone is violating their interpretation. If they were, more tow pilots would know about the issue. I’ve never talked to one yet that had even given it any consideration. And that included me until I mentioned that I did some towing to my aerobatics instructor and he asked how I was getting around the idea that having others pay for my A/C usage without even paying my fair share amounted to compensation in the beady eyes of the FAA.

<<<

I don't know when this all happened - I also think some of his questions are: can he log the PIC hours or does that also count as compensation? I really thought this would be a simple question!

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I would be interested to know who the UCM faculty he talked to are. I wonder if I know any of them.

 

[jesse]

Correct me if I'm wrong -- Wasn't that FAQ written BEFORE the FAR's were modified to clearly permit it?

 

[JeffDG]

while subpara (g) makes it clear that a PP can tow a glider, it does NOT say (unlike section (b)) that he can do so for compensation or hire. So I'm inclined to be conservative and say that the PP can fly the airplane and log the time, but he can't get paid for it.

(g) is specifically an exception to the "no compensation or hire" rule that is in 61.113(a)

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I just got this e-mail from the pilot I've been talking with:

>>>

I think you’ll find the FAQs and answers pretty straightforward. I didn’t even know such a document existed until I asked a faculty member in Central Missouri’s aviation department what his opinion on the subject of towing for free was. He looked at the same section 61.113 and concluded that it was ok. Then he asked other faculty and they also concluded it was ok. Then he asked an FAA examiner friend who checked the FAQs and concluded it was not ok. When the faculty member read the FAQs he changed his opinion, too. So I’ll be surprised if you read the FAQs and conclude anything other than “it’s not ok”. I know if I ever get into another club I will insist on being charged for tow plane usage if I do any towing.

The other side of the coin is apparently the FAA doesn’t do any nosing around to see if anyone is violating their interpretation. If they were, more tow pilots would know about the issue. I’ve never talked to one yet that had even given it any consideration. And that included me until I mentioned that I did some towing to my aerobatics instructor and he asked how I was getting around the idea that having others pay for my A/C usage without even paying my fair share amounted to compensation in the beady eyes of the FAA.

<<<

I don't know when this all happened - I also think some of his questions are: can he log the PIC hours or does that also count as compensation? I really thought this would be a simple question!

The regs say he can.

And, assuming the .pdf attached above is the "FAQ" referenced, it says:

ANSWER: Ref. § 6 1.11 3(g); Yes, a person who holds a private pilot certificate and meets the requirements of § 61.69 may act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider. And yes, a private pilot who meets the requirements of 5 61.69 may log pilot in command flight time while towing a glider.

Further down:

the regulations now permit such logging in the context of glider towing...

Seems clear to me. You can tow and log all you want (assuming other conditions are met)

The pilot you have been talking to might want to re-read the "FAQ" again.

 

[TMetzinger]

(g) is specifically an exception to the "no compensation or hire" rule that is in 61.113(a)

Upon another re-read, I agree with you.

 

[JeffDG]

Upon another re-read, I agree with you.

Read it again, and you'll disagree...that's the beauty of the FARs, you'll never understand them the same way twice!

That said, I'm not asking, after what they did the (b) last year, nobody should ever ask the Chief Counsel anything about 61.113!

 

[BillTIZ]

I'm attaching a PDF. It's a FAQ about 61.113.

I don't know if it's outdated or not, but I just got it from the guy who's been asking the questions.

The highlited areas are the pertinent sections. This document seems to indicate that a PP acting as a towpilot should have to pay for the flight or is being illegally compensated.

Maybe the currently written 61.113 voids this FAQ, but here it is anyway.

Is there a newer set of interpretions out there that I can pass along back to the guy I've been talking to?


edit: It seems like there are some questions in that FAQ and from the pilot I've been talking to about whether 'acting as PIC' is legal, where 'logging PIC' may be considered an improper compensation.

That FAQ is very old.

 

[BillTIZ]

Ok.. I'm late to the game here... but here goes..

I know we have a number of glider pilots on this board, and more than a few legal/technical types.

Something came up recently, and I'm curious. This is a combination of insurance technicalities and FAA legalities.

A towpilot does not need a commercial ticket (I think, but am not sure, that our club insurance requires a commercial).

Depends on how the club insurance is written. Most likely if you have "commercial insurance" because you sell tows to non-club members or provide glider rides for hire, the insurance company may require a commercial rated tow pilot. The FARs do not.

If a private pilot performs towpilot duties in a club-owned towplane, without financial reimbursement (we do not pay our towpilots, they are members of the club), does the towpilot have to pay for the expenses of the flight?

No

This question was posed by a member of another club - the worry is that unless the private pilot pays for the expenses of the flight, then he is being reimbursed for his services with 'free' flight time and then would need a commercial ticket to prevent being in violation of FAA regs.

Anyone run across this before?
Thanks,
Matthew

The previously referred to FAQ file is grossly out of date and not updated with recent changes to FARs.

Private pilots can tow, can put it in the logbooks and use that time towards additional ratings and do not have to pay part of the cost of flying the tow plane. AND HE CAN GET PAID FOR IT.

The tow is not the commercial operation in a ride for hire operation. The ride is in the glider.. not the tow plane.

Insurance companies have more stringent rules.

 

[BillTIZ]

Correct me if I'm wrong -- Wasn't that FAQ written BEFORE the FAR's were modified to clearly permit it?

you are not wrong..

 

[BillTIZ]

I just got this e-mail from the pilot I've been talking with:

>>>

I think you’ll find the FAQs and answers pretty straightforward. I didn’t even know such a document existed until I asked a faculty member in Central Missouri’s aviation department what his opinion on the subject of towing for free was. He looked at the same section 61.113 and concluded that it was ok. Then he asked other faculty and they also concluded it was ok. Then he asked an FAA examiner friend who checked the FAQs and concluded it was not ok. When the faculty member read the FAQs he changed his opinion, too. So I’ll be surprised if you read the FAQs and conclude anything other than “it’s not ok”. I know if I ever get into another club I will insist on being charged for tow plane usage if I do any towing.

The other side of the coin is apparently the FAA doesn’t do any nosing around to see if anyone is violating their interpretation. If they were, more tow pilots would know about the issue. I’ve never talked to one yet that had even given it any consideration. And that included me until I mentioned that I did some towing to my aerobatics instructor and he asked how I was getting around the idea that having others pay for my A/C usage without even paying my fair share amounted to compensation in the beady eyes of the FAA.

<<<

I don't know when this all happened - I also think some of his questions are: can he log the PIC hours or does that also count as compensation? I really thought this would be a simple question!

The FAQ was written before 61.113(g) was added to the FARs.

 

[BillTIZ]

The date on the FAQ is July 22, 2005. I just picked up my 2010 copy of the FAR and I'll look at it later tonight, but I'm pretty sure the version I looked at earlier today, on the FAA website, is the latest.

Previous thread.. the AIM FAR published for 2010 was actually printed last summer before the new rules went into effect in Oct.

 

[Matthew]

The FAQ was written before 61.113(g) was added to the FARs.

Check out page 2 of the PDF that I posted a little while ago. Specifically the highlighted section/

It specifically addresss 61.113(g) - "The answer is no, a private pilot may not receive compensation for towing a glider."

Later, it says:

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 pilots to "... act as PIC of an aircraft towing a glider" for the the purpos of permitting a private pilot to log PIC time."

This seems to indicate that this FAQ was written AFTER 61.113(g), and also indicates that the intention of (g) was only to allow LOGGING, and NOT compensation.

I think that FAA has ruled in the past that 'free' flight time counts as compensation.

 

[tonycondon]

if all they wanted to allow was logging then thats what they should've said.

 

[tonycondon]

actually looking at the historical FARs on the FAA website, 61.113(g) existed as far back as 1978. but if the FAA intention was to only allow LOGGING of flight time by a PP towing a lgider that should've gone into the section of part 61 about logging flight time, instead of saying that the private pilot could in fact act as PIC while towing a glider and receive compensation for that.

 

[Matthew]

Does anybody know anything about this FAQ document? Does it represent the official policy of FAA or is it the opinion of one of the FAA attorneys?

All I have of the document are the 2 pages that were forwarded to me.

 

[Matthew]

I did some more checking - those forwarded FAQ pages were from the John Lynch FAQ document. I found a copy.

What is the whole story and status of that FAQ? Is it valid and binding?

Matt

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Does anybody know anything about this FAQ document? Does it represent the official policy of FAA or is it the opinion of one of the FAA attorneys?

Who signed the document? If you have a Legal Interpretation or Chief Counsel opinion, it has the same weight as the regulation. IOW it is as official an interpretation as you can get.

But I am still trying to figure out what is ambiguous about 61.113(g):

(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.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

What is the whole story and status of that FAQ? Is it valid and binding?

Depends on who you ask. I have heard that it is used internally by the FAA but I have no first hand knowledge of that.

 

[Matthew]

Who signed the document? If you have a Legal Interpretation or Chief Counsel opinion, it has the same weight as the regulation. IOW it is as official an interpretation as you can get.

But I am still trying to figure out what is ambiguous about 61.113(g):

Greg,

I think (g) is clear, but John Lynch's FAQ adds to it. He says that a PP can't be PIC for free, even as a towpilot, or it is considered flying for compensation and that's where the concern is. That's why I'm trying to find out more about his FAQ.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Greg,

I think (g) is clear, but John Lynch's FAQ adds to it. He says that a PP can't be PIC for free, even as a towpilot, or it is considered flying for compensation and that's where the concern is. That's why I'm trying to find out more about his FAQ.

You must be reading something different than I am.

 

[Matthew]

You must be reading something different than I am.

I'm just going by the highlighted sections:

>>
It specifically addresss 61.113(g) - "The answer is no, a private pilot may not receive compensation for towing a glider."
<<

and

>>
In the case of the 1990 opinion arising in the context of glider towing, the opinion still has vitality for the proposition that the logging of flight time can be a form of compensation impermissible under 61.113 even though the regulations now permit such logging in the context of glider towing by virtue of the 1998 rule change.
<<

It's out of the Lynch FAQ.

I'm no lawyer, I'm just trying to help another guy out.

Is this FAQ still valid? or was it ever? I don't know.

 

[gismo]

I did some more checking - those forwarded FAQ pages were from the John Lynch FAQ document. I found a copy.

What is the whole story and status of that FAQ? Is it valid and binding?

Matt

AFaIK John Lynch's FAQ was NEVER legally "binding" but it was considered by many as the closest thing to that short of an opinion from the FAA chief counsel. IOW if you complied with the FAQ you wouldn't likely run afoul of FAA enforcement and stepping beyond the boundariies laid out in the FAQ might easily require a confirming opinion from the chief counsel if you got into a dispute with the FAA about your interpretation.

But since the FAQ was rescinded I think it carries almost no weight anymore, especially given the changes that have occurred in the FARs since the FAQ was last updated. Therefore I think the only practical use of the FAQ copies floating around the internet would be as one source of insight into what the FAA was thinking when they drafted any of the rules the FAQ explains that haven't been revised since the FAQ was last published.

As to the Glider towing issue I concur that as written the regs do allow "pilot compensation" for private pilots (or commercial pilots with a Class III medical) in the form of "free loggable flight time" and/or money. AFaIK the FAA has consistently considered flight time as well as some intangibles like "customer goodwill" to be "compensation" and to my knowledge has never distinguished between those and actual cash payment.

FAR 61.69 deals with the qualifications required to act as a towpilot but does not address anything regarding the compensation issue (neither flight time nor money). FAR 61.113 provides the specifics under which a private pilot may receive "compensation" and paragraph (g) clearly includes glider towing as a something that allows it. Nothing I can see in (g) limits the compensation to "free flight time" so IMO a literal interpretation says that a PP can receive payment for this service.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the FAA intended for this to be legal and a chief counsel opinion to that effect could change things but historically the chief counsel opinions have reflected literal interpretations over intent so it's more likely that the FAA would have to change the rules to make cash compensation to private pilots towing gliders illegal.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I'm just going by the highlighted sections:

>>
It specifically addresss 61.113(g) - "The answer is no, a private pilot may not receive compensation for towing a glider."
<<

and

>>
In the case of the 1990 opinion arising in the context of glider towing, the opinion still has vitality for the proposition that the logging of flight time can be a form of compensation impermissible under 61.113 even though the regulations now permit such logging in the context of glider towing by virtue of the 1998 rule change.
<<

It's out of the Lynch FAQ.

I'm no lawyer, I'm just trying to help another guy out.

Is this FAQ still valid? or was it ever? I don't know.

As I read it

1) a PP can't get paid.
2) Logging is still considered compensation for things other than glider towing in spite of the fact that it allowed (by regulation) for glider towing.
3)"the regulations now permit such logging in the context of glider towing by virtue of the 1998 rule change"
​

 

[Matthew]

As I read it

...
2) Logging is still considered compensation for things other than glider towing in spite of the fact that it allowed (by regulation) for glider towing.
...
​

​

Yeah, now I see what you mean.

I've been reading backwards - "Even though the regs now allow it for towing, it's still FAA policy that logging is compensation." When read that way, there seems to be a contradiction.

But, there is also the section that says: "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 PIC of an aircraft towing a glider" for the purpose of permitting a private pilot to log PIC time."