I know there are a lot of unprofessional pilot out there that get found. We are looking for Editors to Add to the site on a regular basis.
If you think your up to the Job message us or reply to this post and we will look in to adding you as an editor.
if you request via this post you must have a valid e-mail on your profile for the Admin to contact you.
Please do not use airline privileges to undercut other pilots. Most clients would have to pay to get to the plane on their own. Read your airline privilege agreement.
Web Link Source: Barnstormers
Archive Of Advertizement:
FERRY PILOT – NO AIRLINE COST • BETTER PRICES!! • BETTER SERVICE • 14000+hrs & 30 years(10 yrs Ferrying) in UltraLt to 4 engine. Fast, safe & efficient. Don’t overpay! • Contact Michael Hayes – MERIT AVIATION LLC located Throughout, USA • Telephone: 248-425-3066 • Posted January 24, 2012
Web Image Of Advertizement
Please do not use airline privileges to undercut other pilots. Most clients would have to pay to get to the plane on their own. Read your airline privilege agreement.
Web Link: Barnstormers
Archive Of Advertizement:
FERRY PILOT-CFI • AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY • All Singles, Tailwheel, LSA. 20,375 Hrs., Free Airline Travel, Fair Rates, Safe And Reliable. • Contact Steve Purcell, Broker – located Aurora, CO USA • Telephone: 303-693-3872 • Posted January 17, 2012
Web Image
Here is a A Thread on Professional Pilot Rumor Network that has been going on for a few months it is hours of reading about Robert Weaver and Sky Ferry
Robert Weavers Facebook Page ??? Anyone Msg A Mod.. on this page!!
Photo Of Robert Weaver
Here is the Link to his page on the Seneca V N344SE Robert Weaver Crashed..
Here is a Quote from the 97+ Page Read.. at PPRUNE.ORG of just a few people Robert Weaver has ripped off. I am sure more will Surface at later dates. Original Thread 85 Pages Can Be Found Here. Trust me it will take hours and hours to read.
“Lest we forget the carnage he has wreaked upon innocents that we are aware of.
Took funds from David Green, failed to deliver, failed to install ferry tank despite being paid in full.
Took funds from Arben Xhema, failed to deliver or refund anything at all.
Took funds to tank a C172 from an Australian customer. Failed to refund.
Deprived poor Kay alley of her GPS unit which she so kindly allowed him to use which could have saved him from a terrible fate
Employed Paul to deliver three aircraft, failed to pay him for any of the jobs and left him to fund fuel and additional expenses from his own pocket
Crashed and trashed a $900000 Seneca V showing the skill of a computer pilot and luckily survived then blatantly lied to the insurance company to cover someone’s hide?
Undertook a brand new warrior to repay a debt to another ferry company. Despite having funds, he departed Bangor only to return 10 minutes later saying the aircraft was using too much oil??
Left almost all of the Goose Bay hotels owing large amounts of money in various names, Robert Weaver, Bob Weaver etc.
Deprived Youssef of almost $25000 failing to deliver his Piper Lance.
The above aircraft made the trip from Las Vegas with a competent pilot all the way to Coventry then Robert Weaver of Sky ferry got his little mitts on it and it hopped across to the Channel Isles. It encountered maintenance issues requiring deep pockets from the owner.
It then after a week, made a short hop with an additional 4 lard arses and reported an emergency and landed in Nantes with a control issue.
Weavers excuse to the owner. The alternator belt snapped and wound around the rudder, The report stated the aircraft autopilot was in the on position when inspected.
Crapped a hedgehog taking a twin otter to Canada and had to be rescued by Paul after getting into a mess in icing conditions. He bailed out on medical reasons and Paul carried on alone.
Took three weeks to get a C208B across after boasting to me that he was in a turbine with a 1000 mile range. JS had to bail him out.
He failed to deliver a tanked C172 which was stuck in Goose Bay for weeks on end.
He took full payment and failed to deliver another C172 where it would seem he ran out of luck by choosing not to refund someone with good connections.
He required significant additional funds to finally deliver a PA31 to Thailand then it transpired he had taken a huge sum of money and failed to pay the company who provided his fuel releases for that trip.
I am sure there are plenty of instances that I cant recall off hand but if some authorities cant make a case out of the above, then it really is a sad case although I am reliably informed, it is only a matter of time.
Images
Will Update as i get more info..
Authorities have arrested a man they suspect was the pilot of a small plane abandoned at a small Southeast Texas airstrip with about 100 pounds of marijuana onboard.
A Waller County Sheriff’s Office statement says deputies and federal Homeland Security agents arrested 33-year-old Barrington Carl Slack late Monday afternoon outside an Italian restaurant in the Houston suburb of Humble.
Slack was booked into the Waller County Jail in Hempstead, about
50 miles northwest of Houston. No bond has been set for the felony
marijuana possession charge. Jail records list no hometown or attorney for Slack.
The twin-engine plane was found abandoned Nov. 21 after landing
and skidding off the runway at Houston Executive Airport in Brookshire in Waller County, about 35 miles west of Houston.
Sept. 28, 2011, 12:13 a.m. EDT
Associated Press
FITCHBURG, Mass. (AP) — Authorities say the pilot of a single-engine plane that landed at Fitchburg Airport has been arrested after 74 pounds of marijuana and $77,000 in cash was found in three duffel bags inside the aircraft.
Hoang Nguyen, 31, of Hillsborough, Oregon, was charged Tuesday with trafficking marijuana and booked at the State Police Barracks in Leominster. He is to be arraigned in Fitchburg District Court on Wednesday.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and Homeland Security agents began monitoring the movements of Nguyen’s aircraft, which had departed from Santa Monica, Calif. Investigators tracked to the plane to Morris County Airport in Grundy, Illinois, and then to Fitchburg Airport.
When the plane landed, a State Police dog then alerted authorities to the presence of a narcotic odor coming from inside the aircraft.
FREE FERRY PILOT!! • HELP ME • Single-Multi Commercial, complex, high perf. Time in lots of types. No catch! (217) 552-9006 • Contact Joel M. Schneider, Owner – located Champaign, IL USA • Telephone: 2175529006 . • Posted November 29, 2011
Be sure to check your ferry pilot out… You get what you pay for!!
FERRY PILOT FOR EXPENSES ONLY! • FREE DELIVERY • Insured commercial pilot will ferry your airplane for expenses only, just love to fly! High perf/complex, SEL. Detailed quotes available within hours, available on short notice. Click my name to the right to email me or call Myles Located in Lafayette, IN 47905 • Contact Myles Kleinfelter, End User – located Lafayette, IN USA • Telephone: 765-532-5246 . • Posted June 19, 2011
Global-Air.com at it again looking for pilots wanting to fly for free… This company hurts all professional pilots trying to earn a living..
Global-Air.com at it again looking for pilots wanting to fly for free…
From Barn Stormers.... Same Plane!!!
San Diego, CA- A helicopter pilot is accused of shooting a pornographic clip while flying over Southern California.
David Martz, the pilot, is shown in a video performing sexual acts with a pornstar while flying in the skies. In a video obtained by TMZ.com, porn star Puma Swede is seen topless while buzzing over a California highway.
Martz is also under investigation for allegedly flying rocker Tommy Lee while intoxicated and flying dangerously close to a Los Angeles Police chopper.
The FAA confirmed that they had suspended his license and has disciplined Martz four times for flying recklessly.
If anyone has the unedited video please msg me..
EUGENE, Ore. (AP) – A Sheridan man who had his pilot’s license revoked more than a quarter-century ago has been placed on probation and fined $2,000 after admitting to a federal judge that he flew a single-engine plane from Eugene to Independence.
Teddy Mayfield, 74, has a long history of defying federal aviation rules.
Court records show Mayfield was sentenced in 1994 to 4½ months in federal prison for repeatedly flying without a license. In 1995, he was sentenced to five months in state prison for criminally negligent homicide in the deaths of two customers of his former skydiving school.
Mayfield rebounded from those lows to become a Sheridan city councilman and Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year.
But he caught the Federal Aviation Administration’s attention on June 13, 2008, when he departed from the Eugene Airport without communicating with or getting clearance from air traffic controllers.
He initially told investigators another pilot with him was flying the plane, according to a sentencing memo from Assistant U.S. Attorney William “Bud” Fitzgerald. The FAA, however, discovered the other pilot had been in Corvallis.
Mayfield, in a recent letter to U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, said he took full responsibility for the illegal flight: “I knew better and I should not have done it.”
Fitzgerald and defense attorney Steven Myers agreed Tuesday that probation, not prison, was a sufficient penalty. Myers noted the gap between the 2008 flight and Mayfield’s previous aviation-related conviction. He added his client complied with terms of his pretrial release, and has a 35-year history of community service in Sheridan.
Mayfield first had his license to fly revoked while still a student pilot in 1967, for illegally carrying a passenger during a flight. He obtained a commercial pilot’s license in 1972 and opened Pacific Parachute Center in Sheridan.
The FAA revoked Mayfield’s license in 1982 for violations that included failing to disclose his criminal history on a prerequisite medical certificate application. Though his license was never reinstated, Mayfield continued to fly despite court orders not to do so, leading to his 1994 federal prison sentence.
That same year, the FAA revoked Mayfield’s parachute rigger certificate after the agency faulted his failure to properly pack and maintain two parachutes involved in skydiving fatalities. In 1995, he pleaded guilty in Yamhill County Circuit Court to criminally negligent homicide in the deaths of Charles Schaefer, 33, and Lee Perry Sr., 85.
They were among 13 people who died in Pacific Parachute Center jumps. An FAA spokeswoman said in 1994 that most of the deaths occurred after parachutes malfunctioned.
—
Information from: The Register-Guard,
http://www.registerguard.com
Source: http://www.katu.com/news/weird/82179502.html
Jan 5, 2010. Barron Thomas Aviation is being called before the Arizona Corporation Commission Securities Division to answer the charge of selling unregistered securities:
“An Arizona investor purchased a $50,000 12% Investment from BT and 3TA on or about March 14, 2005. On April 22, 2005, BT and BTA used the Arizona investor’s money to repay the prior Texas investor. BT and BTA then caused a new FAA Lien to be effected in favor of the new Arizona investor on the N8194W Airplane.
However, unbeknownst to either the Texas or Arizona investor, the blue and white 48194W Airplane was at all times relevant laying in pieces in an open air storage yard in a severely deteriorated state. The N8194W Airplane is comprised of a separated, dented fuselage with faded paint, no wings, no landing gear and includes other defects.”
Ferry Service Provider: American King Air
NTSB Identification: ERA10LA105
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, January 04, 2010 in Greenbush, ME
Aircraft: CESSNA 172S, registration: N5118J
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On January 4, 2010, at 1153 eastern standard time, a Cessna 172S, N5118J, owned and operated by American King Air Services Inc., was substantially damaged when it impacted the Penobscot River, near Greenbush, Maine. The certificated commercial pilot was killed. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the planned flight to Goose Bay Airport (CYYR), Goose Bay, Newfoundland, Canada. The flight originated from Bangor International Airport (KGBR), Bangor, Maine, about 1130. The ferry flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
According to preliminary information from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the operator intended to ultimately deliver the airplane to a customer in Russia. Additional fuel tanks were installed at KBGR for a flight across the Atlantic Ocean. About 25 miles north of KBGR, while in cruise flight at 5,000 feet mean sea level (msl), the pilot requested a higher altitude due to turbulence. Air traffic control (ATC) cleared the flight to 6,000 feet; however, the airplane began to descend. ATC then instructed the pilot to maintain at least 3,000 feet. The pilot replied that he was trying, and ATC subsequently provided the pilot with a vector to divert to Dewitt Field (KOLD), Old Town, Maine. No further transmissions were received from the accident airplane.
Radar data depicted the accident airplane reverse course toward the direction of KOLD and descend. Additionally, a witness reported that the airplane flew overhead about 100 to 200 feet above ground level (agl), with continuous engine noise, until the sound of impact.
The airplane impacted the Penobscot River near Olamon Island, and was subsequently recovered for further examination by an FAA inspector and a representative from the airplane manufacturer.
The reported weather at KBGR, at 1153, was: wind from 330 degrees at 16 knots, gusting to 20 knots; visibility 2 miles in light snow; ceiling 1,500 feet broken; ceiling 2,500 feet overcast; temperature 2 degrees Celsius; dew point –1 degree Celsius; altimeter 29.36 inches of mercury.
Airmen’s meteorological information (AIRMET) Zulu was in effect for the time of the accident. The AIRMET advised of moderate ice below 13,000 feet with the freezing level ranging between the surface and 2,500 feet.
News Story,
It’s Really Poor Quality… But worth watching Cessna lovers grab a box of Kleenex
Pilots’ ‘Unprofessional Behavior’ Led to CRJ Fatal
By: Gordon Gilbert
AINalerts >> January 2007
Accidents
The NTSB concluded that the “unprofessional behavior” and “poor airmanship” of the pilots caused the Oct. 14, 2004 crash of a Pinnacle Airlines Bombardier CRJ.
The two pilots (the only people aboard) were killed. After the pilots took the regional jet to its maximum operating altitude of 41,000 feet, both engines quit.
The pilots “deviated from standard operating procedures and their poor airmanship resulted in an in-flight emergency from which they were unable to recover. The Board also cited the pilots’ inadequate training and their failure to properly prepare for an emergency landing and to communicate with ATC immediately.
In releasing its probable cause on Tuesday, the Board listed the pilots’ “failure to achieve and maintain the target airspeed in the double-engine-failure checklist, which caused the engine cores to stop rotating and resulted in the core lock engine condition. In addition, the Safety Board said, the flight manual failed to emphasize the importance of maintaining a minimum airspeed to keep the cores rotating.
Source: http://www.ainonline.com
This blog is public run by the public and is public opinion…
Posting Rule # 1
Make sure if listing a Unprofessional Pilot “A Pilot That Is Working For Free” On this public blog you must post a link to their advertisement and post a full copy of their advertisement just in case the Unprofessional Pilot deletes their Advertisement.
Posting Rule # 2
No Phone Number’s, Unless It is Posted In their Public Advertisement.
Posting Rule # 3
You will be required to search the FAA Public Database and post their credentials..
Posting Rule # 4
If you have known networking links to the Unprofessional Pilot Myspace.com, Facebook.com, Twitter.com, Youtube Profile’s or any other public networking sites are allowed and encouraged to post such links.
Posting Rule #5
Photos & Embedded Videos Are allowed if the content is publicly accessible. Warrning!!! Any photo/video found to be altered unless done by the Unprofessional Pilot will be deleted by the Admin or Editors and your account will be removed!
Posting Rule #6
Posting Resumes, Again as long as it is posted on a freely accessible public place “found with a search engine” it may be posted its usually best and recommended to post a link then the entire resume.
As far as the information being posted, none of it is to be obtained in any other way except with a search engine, phone call, public website, or through an email.
AOPA Pilot Magazine
December 2008 Volume 51 / Number 12
Pilotage: Will fly for free
By Mark R. Twombly
Freelance writer and editor Mark R. Twombly is also a contract pilot in Southwest Florida.
The letter was addressed to the registered owner of the airplane that I fly for hire. It was refreshingly neat, error free, and at one page plus résumé, properly brief. The writer explained that he is an entrepreneur and MBA, but he had recently made a dramatic career change to aviation professional. That could mean pilot, first officer, some ground-based position, or a combination of the three, he said. It sounded like he was motivated—the résumé told of a fast-track approach (11 months) to earning the requisite FAA pilot credentials up through a commercial certificate with multiengine and instrument ratings. He had even acquired a bit of experience working with a charter operation, although apparently not as a pilot. However, in terms of the bottom-line qualifications to get paid to fly—total time with solid multiengine experience and, preferably, turbine time—he was still pretty wet behind the ears. Getting more of that precious experience was the reason he was writing.
It was a boilerplate letter that the author apparently was sending to an FAA list of aircraft operators in the area. Despite the shotgun approach, I admired his gumption—that is, until I got to the part where he said he wasn’t interested in getting paid to fly. He openly stated that he had done well in his entrepreneurial life, and therefore he is in a position to work for no compensation.
That did it for me. He wasn’t just willing to fly for free, he was pitching himself as a permanent nonpaid employee. In my mind he did not even rise to the standard of the T-shirt proclaiming that the wearer will “Fly for food.” Based on his letter, he probably can afford to dine out every night. Why fly for food? He compounded the insult by stating the obvious—an operator could reduce aircraft operating costs by hiring him, thus avoiding (eliminating?) a salary.
Good for him that he has done well, but what is not so good is that he is aggressively pursuing a slice of what little flying work there might be these days—not by underbidding pilots who really need the dough, but by blowing them out of contention. I wonder if the people and companies that were paying him big money when he was toiling away at honest entrepreneurial work ever had an opportunity to replace him with someone who begged to work for zero compensation. Too bad this pro bono publico pilot didn’t decide instead to become a Wall Street CEO.
The other evening I had another such encounter of the discouraging kind. I ran into a guy I know whose son is a captain for a major airline. Dad beamed as he told me how his son had just checked out on a business turboprop. I wondered if that meant his son had been laid off. “He hasn’t been furloughed,” he said, reading my thoughts. “He’s just doing it for extra work.”
Extra work? I didn’t know such a thing existed anymore, at least not in aviation. Things are bad enough without pilots who already have great jobs rooting around for the few crumbs that might go to those who really need the work.
Of course, the aviation industry has been written on the backs of pilots who will work for ridiculously low pay because that’s the only way they can fatten up their thin logbooks and qualify for a decent job. It’s always been the case, too, that some high-seniority types with too much time on their hands will spend that time nibbling at other for-hire flying jobs.
Unfortunately, the root cause of both of these problems—pilots who work for free, and well-paid pilots who take part-time flying jobs—is not treatable. It stems from a love of flying. Once smitten, we’re sunk. We’ll do almost anything to stay close to our loved one, even if it means working for free. And, even if we have good work, we want more.
That may be an explanation for the sometimes-irrational behavior of pilots, but it’s hardly an excuse. I don’t know of many professions where people offer to work for free, especially one that requires so much time and money just to earn the basic qualifications and that involves so much potential risk.
I can understand the working pilot who takes on part-time jobs just because he or she is bored with flying the line and likes to fly different stuff. I can understand it, but in an ideal world the many business aviation pilots who are losing their gigs would get that work first.
I do not understand how someone who calls himself a professional can unabashedly offer to work for free. It’s an alarming new take on the lamentable tradition of new entrants to aviation—flight instructors, principally—agreeing to work for less than they are worth just to get the experience.
When I began flying for hire I remember a friend giving me a bit of advice. “I don’t know what you plan to charge,” he said, “but if you lowball your rate you cheapen the profession for everyone. Charge what you are worth. Your clients will get what they pay for.”
| Cocaine found on airplane |
—————————————————–
The Story,
Federal agents in California tipped Stow police to an airplane that arrived Friday night at Kent State University’s airport with $750,000 worth of cocaine aboard. Police cars from four police departments surrounded the plane when it landed. Filo, a police dog from the Kent Police Department, was led around the plane by his handler, Marty Gilliland. A police video showed Filo jumping and scratching the outside of the plane. Video provided by Stow Police Dept.
Do you want this Person Ferrying Your Airplane?
Pilot Name: Peter Storrer
I Fly For Free!!!
Facebook: Link
Myspace: Link
E-mail: peterstorrer@gmail.com
Offending Advertisement: Posted On Controller.com Classifieds
Archive of Contents Of Advertisement:
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
Certificates:
DOI:11/21/2008 Certificate:COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
PRIVATE PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
Limits
ENGLISH PROFICIENT. AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE VFR ONLY.
Mr. Storrers Comments When Members Of A Well Respected Forum Tried To Help Him And Offer Advice.
“I’m not too worried about the supposed black mark. I understand your concern, though. I get at least one of these emails a week. I know the economy is tough right now especially for those in the aviation field. Don’t worry I haven’t taken any jobs from you, it is the economy that has made it tough. Hang in there actually I haven’t ferried very many airplanes in the past 6 months. Reason being it has been hard to get funding. But as things turn around you’ll see people being more willing to use a professional service such as yours, than use some freebie. So don’t feel the world is over just yet, In the next election Vote for “AMERICA” not some hack politician that has no record or background that we’re stuck with in a president, and congress today!”
“I now know that your in UT and no it couldn’t be you none of you guys Leith included have as much multi time as I do, You young kids were disrectful in just contacting me and wining about how I steal food from you guys. Leith knows I have my own business and do quite well. Aviation for me is just a hobby. But since you know who and where I am why don’t you come talk to me as a professional, face to face bring all of your boy friends including Leith as well.”
“Listen numb skull, I’m not the 18 yr. old kid you seem to be, I hope I steal every job you and your buddies are after. I could care less, you foolish kids think that the aviation world is so small get out of your kindergarten mindset. I’m sorry you have no work. If you’d act a little more mature and quit trying to threaten people such as I who happen to not live their whole lives hoping to land that one pilot job. I’ll tell you what though, I’m a forgiving kind of person so when Jeremy decides he needs a job and has sufficient amount of experience, and wants to start acting like a professional instead of a little baby who just graduated from diapers to a headset give me a call I’ll give you a job! Oh, by the way maybe that guy with the jet across the airport is me, you ever consider that?”
10/30/90
Ms. Judy Lincoln
Dear Ms. Lincoln:
This is in further response to your letter dated July 19, 1990, and follows the August 14, 1990, interim response of Mr. George Thompson, Assistant Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Northwest Mountain Region. You asked for a clarification of several FAA opinions concerning whether private pilots may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft towing gliders. Based on your letter and a memorandum to our office from Mr. Thompson, we understand that in the specific circumstances applicable to the Soaring Society of America (SSA), no money is paid to the private pilot. However, the glider pilot does pay a tow fee to the glider club, which provides the tow aircraft without charge to the tow pilot.
The opinions at issue are:
1. Letter dated February 11, 1978, from Clark Onstad, Chief Counsel, to Mr. Forrest Blossom of SSA.
2. Memo dated February 22, 1978, from Jonathan Howe, Acting Chief Counsel, to AEA-7.
3. Letter dated April 5, 1978, from Edward Faberman, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to Mr. Leonard E. Samuelson, Jr.
4. Letter dated June 26, 1980, from William Sacrey, Chief, Operations Branch, to Ms. Loretta Belter.
5. Memo dated April 28, 1982, from Joseph Budro, Chief, Flight Standards Branch, to Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division.
6. Memo dated May 1982 from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division.
Your concern, as outlined in your letter and the attached commentary, is that the 1978 opinions (Documents 1, 2 and 3 above) appear to support the position that the tow pilot under the circumstances described need not have a commercial pilot certificate, while Document No. 6 says that such operations would require a commercial pilot certificate. I believe that these two lines of opinions can be explained by reference to the specific sections of Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations), to which they apply. Section 61.118 provides, in relevant part: Except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. * * * * * In this paragraph from Section 61.118 there are two district prohibitions that apply to a private pilot.
The first prong of Section 61.118 says a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire. As the question arises in the glider context, the first issue to be addressed is whether an aircraft towing a glider is “carrying passengers or property.” Document No. 1, the Onstad letter, concluded (in paragraph 5) that “a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them.” From this premise, it followed that a tow pilot with only a private pilot certificate would not be violating the first prong of Section 61.118. Once it was decided that the glider and its occupants were not property or passengers, the issue of compensation or hire became irrelevant to the first prong of 61.118. The Documents cited above are consistent in supporting this conclusion., See, in addition to Document No. 1, No. 2 (paragraphs 3 and 4), and No. 3 (paragraph 3).
The second prong of Section 61.118 says that a private pilot may not, “for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.” There is no question that the pilot of the tow plane is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. The issue is whether he is so acting “for compensation or hire.” With regard to this second prong of Section 61.118, the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of “compensation” to the private pilot under Section 61.118. Only one of the documents you enclosed with your letter squarely addresses this issue. In Document No. 6, paragraph 4, Bernard Geier noted that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act, within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for compensation or hire. In summary we are left with two conclusions that may seem contradictory as applied to the tow plane situation. On the one hand, there is the Onstad letter (Document No. 1) and others holding that since a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them, a private pilot may tow a glider without running afoul of the first prong of Section 61.118. On the other hand, there is the conclusion of the Geier letter (Document No. 6) that building flight time by towing gliders is considered to be an operation for compensation or hire; thus a private pilot towing a glider would run afoul of the second prong of Section 61.118. One explanation is that Mr. Onstad and the others who reached the same conclusion simply did not address the second prong of Section 61.118. It appears that Mr. Onstad skirted the issue when he noted that the tow plane pilot does not “receive any remuneration other than the eligibility of flying the tow plane.” It is unclear what “eligibility” means in this context, but in any event Mr. Onstad did not directly address the question of building flight time in this letter. In the sixth paragraph of his letter, he took at face value SSA’s statement that the pilot received no remuneration for his service, and did not consider whether building flight time was considered “compensation or hire.” That means the Onstad letter is correct as far as it goes, but is an incomplete analysis of the issues. To the extent that it was intended to address the second prong, or can be reasonably read to address the second prong, this opinion, not the Onstad letter, now controls.
It could be argued that the accumulation of flight time is not always of value to the pilot involved. The FAA does not consider it appropriate to enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of time is of value to a particular pilot, or what the pilot’s motives or intentions are on each flight. One solution to this problem would be for private tow plane pilots not to log their time, a practice which I understand the Palouse Soaring Society (PSS) pilots have already adopted (according to Mr. Thompson’s August 14, 1990 letter to SSA). I gather that this is not a hardship, since, as you note in your commentary: In the case of the PSS, each private rated tow pilot has already logged flight time in excess of the commercial pilot minimums noted in 61.129(b), and thus has no motive to `build flight time’ towing gliders. If compensation, hire, gain or advantages were desired, any of these pilots could readily obtain his commercial pilot rating and find a more efficient means to `build flight time’ …. Another alternative would be for the PSS pilots to obtain their commercial pilot ratings, which would resolve the Section 61.118 prohibitions concerning private pilots. This interpretation has been coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Office of Flight Standards at FAA Headquarters. We hope that it satisfactorily responds to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
/s/
Donald P. Bynre
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division
