Does this operation require a commercial certificate?

[MauleSkinner]

But if that person is just doing pattern work or local flying.. there shouldn't be an issue - right?

While there may be degrees of difference in certificate/authorization requirements, a commercial flight operation is a commercial flight operation, whether it’s local/pattern work or international.

 

[Rene]

Another viewpoint? Is logging the time really a “benefit”? Aren’t you logging to prove currency IAW regulation?

Just be thankful that the US Forest Service does not get involved and require an Environmental Impact Statement prior to "logging" flight time over federal lands.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

You really greased that one.....

 

[Matthew]

So, what’s the answer?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

So, what’s the answer?

If you are asking about what I asked in the original question, the answer I am taking away from this discussion is that it is NOT required to have a Commercial Certificate for this operation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I belong to a glider club in which I am one of the tow pilots. We are entering the winter season where there is no glider flying. Our director of maintenance would like to see the tow plane fly at least an hour or so each month between now and spring. The club will furnish fuel and oil. The pilot gets free flight time. Is this an operation that requires a CPL?

Since the club will furnish the fuel, our DoM is of the opinion that a Commercial Certificate and a current 2nd Class medical is required since the pilot is not providing the pro-rata share of the operating cost.

My opinion is that since the pilot is a member of the club that requirement doesn’t apply.

So, who’s right?

Well, until someone either gets nailed by the FAA for doing it or gets a Chief Counsel interpretation one way or the other, the answer is "nobody knows for sure". And this is very much a gray area, and I could make a good case in either direction.

Next question - Is it an equity club? IE, do you hold actual shares of the club? That may or may not really matter, but if it's *not* an equity club it's a lot harder to make the argument that a club member is an owner. And as a long-time board member of a flying club, I can tell you that at some point we decided that maintenance flights, ferry flights and the like should require either a commercial pilot or a board member, even though we were an equity club. (Board members were already compensated for serving on the board with a small amount of free flight time.) The litmus test, at least at the time, was pretty much "Would this person have normally needed to pay for this flight time?"

You can make a good case either way.

I'm glad a real lawyer agrees with me.

You are getting free flight time in exchange for providing a service. That equals compensation.

This is probably the most sure thing here. The pilot is getting compensation. Whether that's OK with the FAA or not is the gray area.

Towing a glider with someone in it only requires a private certificate (61.69 & 61.113(g)) and the private pilot may receive compensation. On this point, you might refer your director of maintenance to the 2010 Soaring Society interpretation. One could say that if a private pilot can tow a glider with a pilot in it, how can flying a tow plane without a glider be a problem?

On the other hand, who's to say that it's not just any other airplane if there's not a glider attached? If it's a 182 with a tow hook, can I do whatever I want with it just because it *can* tow gliders?

The membership argument is based on some interpretations excepting flying clubs from such things as 100 hour inspections on the theory that the member "owns" the airplane and therefore it's not supplied by the instructor. Even that is the subject of ifs, and or buts (does the club control who may instruct? Is it an equity or nonequity club?), it's probably useless for anything beyond it's stated conditions.

It's not about who owns the plane, it's about whether or not they're providing the instructor. We allowed members to use pretty much any instructor, and were not subject to 100 hours.

If Members *pay* to be in the club and as part of those payments, get an opportunity to fly these flights...well, you can see my thinking this is the exact opposite of compensation. You are paying to be able to do it.

But do they pay a flat fee, or do they pay for flight time, or...? If they pay a flat fee and NEVER pay for time, then I'd be with you. If they'd normally pay for time but this time is free, not so much.

To make it even more gray, I think most glider ops charge either a per-tow rate or an altitude rate (ie $1 per 100 feet of altitude) so it's none of the above but still an incremental cost.

In our club if one of the planes needs to be flown somewhere for maintenance or upgrades, whichever member that flies it doesn’t pay. We’ve never considered that compensation and we’ve got a couple of lawyers in the club management.

But are they aviation lawyers, and have they actually considered that question, or is it just the usual "we've always done it that way" or people not familiar with the FAA's regulations and interpretations thereof?

I'm not questioning compensation. What's the FAR that arguably requires a commercial certificate for this operation? Is it based on "providing a service"? That's my question.

Acting as PIC for compensation or hire.

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

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) 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.

It's not about "providing a service". It's about receiving compensation for acting as pilot in command of an aircraft.

So, what’s the answer?

Nobody knows until there's an enforcement case on it or the chief counsel issues an interpretation.

If you are asking about what I asked in the original question, the answer I am taking away from this discussion is that it is NOT required to have a Commercial Certificate for this operation.

I think you're merely suffering from confirmation bias - There are answers in both directions, as I would expect given that there is no definitive answer for this sort of case yet, but because some posters agreed with you you're sticking with the opinion you started with. Right?

I think at the end of the day, @Chip Sylverne is right: Ask your insurance company if they'll pay out if there's a private pilot flying the towplane and being compensated with free flight time. And get it in writing.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The litmus test, at least at the time, was pretty much "Would this person have normally needed to pay for this flight time?"

I don’t think that litmus test could be applied here, as there is probably no way for the person to pay for flight time in the tow plane.

Nobody knows until there's an enforcement case on it or the chief counsel issues an interpretation.

As a bona fide “gray area”, it boils down to somebody forcing the issue as either an enforcement case or a Chief Counsel question. Honestly, when I was towing gliders as a Private Pilot (before the carve-out was added to 61.113), I would have had no issues doing these maintenance flights at the risk of being the test case. And my experience with the FAA since then wouldn’t change that. Obviously I can’t make that judgment for anyone but myself, but I don’t think the outcome would’ve changed much of anything in my aviation career since then.

I think at the end of the day, @Chip Sylverne is right: Ask your insurance company if they'll pay out if there's a private pilot flying the towplane and being compensated with free flight time.

Probably a good idea regardless of legality, but let’s state the obvious: it is separate from the legality question.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don’t think that litmus test could be applied here, as there is probably no way for the person to pay for flight time in the tow plane.

Which is one point toward the side of it not requiring a Commercial.

As a bona fide “gray area”, it boils down to somebody forcing the issue as either an enforcement case or a Chief Counsel question. Honestly, when I was towing gliders as a Private Pilot (before the carve-out was added to 61.113), I would have had no issues doing these maintenance flights at the risk of being the test case. And my experience with the FAA since then wouldn’t change that. Obviously I can’t make that judgment for anyone but myself, but I don’t think the outcome would’ve changed much of anything in my aviation career since then.

With the "compliance philosophy" version of the FAA, I agree, provided the pilot is the sort of person who comes in with an attitude of being willing to learn about the errors of their ways. If they're the sort of person who will argue that they were right the entire time, it might not go so well.

Probably a good idea regardless of legality, but let’s state the obvious: it is separate from the legality question.

Yes - And I think the risk of an incident not being covered by insurance is worse than the risk of any sort of FAA enforcement.