Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise the Federal Aviation

Regulations that prescribe the certification and training requirements

for pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors and the

operation of pilot schools approved by the FAA. In order to be more

compatible with the current operating environment and the evolving

demands of the National Airspace System, the proposals are intended to

update training, certification, and recency of experience requirements.

The proposals respond to comments to the FAA from the public, internal

FAA review, and comments from the International Civil Aviation

Organization.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposals may be delivered or mailed in

triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 25910, 800

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. All comments must be

marked ``Docket No. 25910.'' Comments may be examined in the Rules

Docket, Room 915G, weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., except on

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lynch, Certification Branch, AFS-

840, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards

Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3844.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by

submitting written data, views, or arguments as they desire. Comments

relating to the potential economic, environmental, energy, or

federalism impact of the proposals contained in this notice are also

invited.

The comments should identify the regulatory docket or notice number

and should be submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address

specified above. All comments received on or before the closing date

for comments will be considered by the Administrator before action is

taken on the proposed amendments, and the proposals contained in this

notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments

received as well as a report summarizing any substantive public contact

with FAA personnel on this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. The

docket is available for public inspection before and after the closing

date for submitting comments. The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a

comment if the commenter submits with the comment a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments

to Docket No. 25910.'' When the comment is received, the postcard will

be dated, time stamped, and returned to the commenter.

The FAA has proposed specific flight and ground time requirements

in various sections of this NPRM. These specific time requirements may

be modified in light of the comments received in response to this NPRM.

Availability of the NPRM

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,

Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-220, 800 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Requests

should be identified by the NPRM number or docket number of this

proposed rule. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for

future proposed rules should also request a copy of Advisory Circular

No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which

describes the application procedure.

General Aviation Policy Statement

On September 8, 1993, Administrator David R. Hinson issued a

general aviation policy statement in which he recognized that the

general aviation industry is a critically important part of the

nation's economy and the national transportation system. Administrator

Hinson stated the following:

General aviation plays a crucial role in flight training for all

segments of aviation and provides unique personal and recreational

opportunities. It makes vital contributions to activities ranging

from business aviation, to agricultural operations, to Warbird

preservation, to glider and balloon flights. Accordingly, it is the

policy of the FAA to foster and promote general aviation while

continuing to improve its safety record. These goals are neither

contradictory nor separable. They are best achieved by cooperating

with the aviation community to define mutual concerns and joint

efforts to accomplish objectives. We will strive to achieve the

goals through voluntary compliance and methods designed to reduce

the regulatory burden on general aviation.

The FAA's general aviation programs will focus on:

1. Safety--To protect recent gains and aim for a new threshold.

2. FAA Services--To provide the general aviation community with

responsive, customer-driven certification, air traffic, and other

services.

3. Product Innovation and Competitiveness--To ensure the

technological advancement of general aviation.

4. System Access and Capacity--To maximize general aviation's

ability to operate in the National Airspace System.

5. Affordability--To promote economic and efficient general

aviation operations, expand participation, and stimulate industry

growth.

Accordingly, this rulemaking project was and is designed to meet

these general aviation goals and provide economic relief from

unnecessary, burdensome regulations. Throughout the development of this

notice, the FAA has been in partnership with the general aviation

community in developing and revising the rules in parts 61, 141, and

143 to ensure aviation safety and yet delete unnecessary, burdensome

rules. The FAA is committed to this partnership with our general

aviation constituents, and will continue the partnership through the

notice and final rule phases of this rulemaking action.

Table of Contents for the Preamble

A. Background

1. NPRM No. 92-10, Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot

Training, Testing, and Checking at Training Centers.

2. Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Petition

3. General Discussion of Principal Issues

B. Part 61 Issues

1. Definition of Terms

a. Aeronautical Experience

b. Airman Certificate

c. Authorized Ground Instructor

d. Authorized Flight Instructor

e. Cross-Country Time

f. Examiner

g. Flight Training

h. Ground Training

i. Instrument Approach

j. Instrument Training

k. Knowledge Test

l. Practical Test

m. Supervised Pilot-in-Command (PIC) Time

[[Page 41161]]

n. Training time

2. Areas of Operation

3. New Aircraft Category, Classes

a. Powered-Lift

b. Glider Class Ratings

4. New Instrument Ratings

a. Airship Instrument Rating

b. Instrument ratings-airplanes

c. Instrument rating-Powered-lift

5. Lighter-Than-Air Flight Instructor Certificate

6. Revision of Ground Instructor Certificates and Ratings;

Inclusion in Part 61.

7. Eligibility and Tests

8. Training Requirements

9. Proficiency

10. Privileges and Limitations

11. Records

12. Recency of Experience

13. Conversion to New System of Ground Instructor Certificate

14. Medical Certificates

15. Required Pilot Possession of Pilot and Medical Certificates

16. Issuance of U.S. Pilot Certificates on the Basis of Foreign

Pilot Licenses

17. Logging Flight Time

18. Recency of Experience Requirements

19. Instrument Currency

20. English Language Ability Requirements

21. Flight Training Given by a Flight Instructor Not

Certificated by the FAA

22. Second-in-Command (SIC) Training and Recent Experience

23. Knowledge Tests

24. Standardized Syllabus

25. Training and Endorsements

26. Endorsement for Complex and High Performance Airplanes

27. Aircraft Type Specific Training

28. Human Factors

29. Aeronautical Decision Making and Judgment Training

30. Windshear Avoidance

31. Aeronautical Experience Requirements

32. Instrument Rating

33. Recreational Pilot Certificate

34. Preflight Planning

35. Limitations on Cross-Country Endorsements

36. Night Flight Training

37. Private Pilot Limitations

38. Glider Towing

39. Eligibility for Commercial Pilot Certificate

40. Use of Turbojet Airplanes for Commercial Pilot Certification

41. Commercial Pilot Experience--Cross Country Training Flight

42. ATP Requirements

43. Pilot in Command Hour Requirement for Initial Flight

Instructor Applicants

44. Experience Required for Training Flight Instructor

Candidates

45. Flight Instructor Renewal Requirements

46. Flight Instructor Duty Time Limitations

47. Flight Training from a Control Seat

C. Part 141 Issues:

1. Approval of Training Courses That Permit Pilot Schools to

Train to a Standard

2. Check Instructors

3. Quality of Training Requirements

4. Temporary Chief Instructor

5. Transfer Between Part 141 Schools

6. Maintenance Requirements

7. Ground School Instructor Requirements

8. Instructor Proficiency Requirements

9. Renewal of Certificate

10. Recordkeeping Requirements for Pilot Schools with Examining

Authority

11. Reorganization of Requirements for Courses that are Approved

Under Part 141

12. Appendix A--Recreational Pilot Certification Course

13. Appendix B--Private Pilot Certification Course

14. Appendix C--Instrument Rating Course

15. Appendix D--Commercial Pilot Certification Course

16. Appendix E--Airline Transport Pilot Certification Course

17. Appendix F--Flight Instructor Certification Course

18. Appendix G--Flight Instructor Instrument (Aircraft Category

and Class) Certification Course

19. Appendix H--Ground Instructor Certification Course

20. Appendix I--Aircraft Category or Class Rating Course

21. Appendix J--Aircraft Type Rating Course, other than airline

transport pilot

22. Appendix K--Special Preparation Courses

23. Appendix L--Pilot Ground School Course

D. Section by section discussion of Part 1--Definitions and

Abbreviations

1. Balloon

2. Flight Time

3. Pilot in command

E. Section by section discussion of Part 61--Certification: Pilots,

Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors

F. Section by section discussion of Part 141--Pilot Schools

A. Background

Since September of 1987, the FAA has been conducting a regulatory

review of parts 61, 141, and 143 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(FAR). These regulations pertain to certification and training

requirements for pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors and

the operation of pilot schools that are approved by the FAA. This

regulatory review is being undertaken in response to advancements in

aviation technology, training, and changes in the National Airspace

System (NAS) that have occurred since the last major revisions to these

parts in the early 1970's. The FAA has received numerous petitions for

exemption and letters from the public suggesting changes to the current

regulations. To date, there have been 41 amendments and approximately

3,616 exemption actions to parts 61 and 141. Recommendations and

comments from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the

public, and the FAA have also demonstrated the need for the regulatory

review. A major goal of the review is to identify differences between

the rules and the level of training demanded of pilots in today's

aviation environment.

In support of this regulatory review, the FAA completed a

historical review of parts 61, 141, and 143 in January 1988. During

this review, the FAA also received input from pilot schools and college

and university aviation departments operating under parts 61 and 141.

Three major areas were identified during this review: first, issues of

immediate concern recommended by the NTSB and public comments; second,

the requirements for aircraft operations in today's environment; and

finally, the requirements for pilots in the year 2010 and beyond.

Accordingly, the regulatory review was divided into three phases

corresponding to the needs identified above. The final rule for Phase

1, Amendment Nos. 61-90 and 141-4 (56 FR 11308; March 15, 1991;

effective on April 15, 1991), contained the following:

1. New requirement to obtain training and a flight instructor

endorsement to serve as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane;

2. New requirement to obtain training and a flight instructor

endorsement to serve as pilot in command of a pressurized airplane

capable of high altitude flight above 25,000 MSL;

3. New requirement for an applicant to complete a training

curricula and receive a flight instructor endorsement prior to

qualifying in an airplane that requires a type rating;

4. New requirement to permit completion of a phase of the WINGS

program as satisfactory completion of a biennial flight review (BFR);

5. New requirement for pilot applicants to receive ground training

on stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques;

6. New requirement for pilot applicants to receive flight training

on flights at slow airspeeds with realistic distractions and the

recognition of and recovery from stalls;

7. New requirement for flight instructor applicants to receive and

demonstrate actual spin training;

8. New requirement for flight instructor applicants to perform a

spin demonstration on retests when the reason for the failure was due

to deficiencies of knowledge or skill relating to stall awareness, spin

entry, spins, or spin recovery techniques;

9. New requirement that FAA inspectors and designated pilot

examiners may accept instructor endorsements for the spin demonstration

on practical tests for flight instructor applicants;

[[Page 41162]]

10. New requirement in part 141 that a chief or assistant chief

flight instructor only has to be available by telephone, radio, or

other electronic means during the time that instruction is given for an

approved course of training;

11. New requirement in part 141 for initial designation of

assistant chief flight instructors that are one half the requirements

of chief flight instructors;

12. New requirement to eliminate the 100-hour currency experience

requirement in part 141 for chief flight instructors to obtain initial

designation; and

13. New requirement to eliminate the 25 mile distance restriction

for establishing satellite bases in part 141.

This NPRM represents Phase 2 of the regulatory review. Phase 2

addresses issues affecting parts 1, 61, 141, and 143. Prior to drafting

and publishing this NPRM, the FAA issued a notice of hearing (54 FR

22732; May 25, 1989) that announced 4 public hearings and outlined the

general topics for this NPRM. Four public hearings were held before the

drafting and publishing of this NPRM as part of Phase 2. The hearings

were held in Washington, DC (September 12-13, 1989); Chicago, Illinois

(September 19-20, 1989); Los Angeles, California (October 3-4, 1989);

and Orlando, Florida (October 16-17, 1989).

Phase 2 also involves a Pilot and Flight Instructor Job Task

Analysis (JTA), completed on March 31, 1989, which consolidated the

results of a study on areas of pilot knowledge, skills, abilities, and

attitudes required in today's aviation environment. The JTA provided

the framework for this phase of the regulatory review and provides

information for use in training programs and practical test standards.

A copy of the JTA is available for examination in Docket No. 25627 and

for purchase on a diskette through the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650. The cost

of the diskette is $55 in the United States and the NTIS order number

is PB89-167845CAU.

Most of the JTA consisted of data, based on experts' opinions, used

to quantify the relative importance of knowledge, skills, abilities,

and attitudes. The JTA also included a panel that discussed current and

future pilot training needs. A transcript of the panel's deliberations

is contained in Docket No. 25627. The panel's objective was to project

pilot training needs 3 to 10 years into the future. The panel discussed

changing technology, airline pilot requirements, airspace, training,

instructors, and aviation economics.

In addition, on February 9 and 10, 1993, the FAA conducted

information gathering meetings with a number of aviation organizations

and schools on the comments received in Docket No. 25627. These

meetings concerned issues raised during the public hearings that were

held in Washington, DC (September 12-13, 1989); Chicago, Illinois

(September 19-20, 1989); Los Angeles, California (October 3-4, 1989);

and Orlando, Florida (October 16-17, 1989), and the information

received during the JTA that was completed on March 31, 1989. Because

so much time had passed since the time of the hearings, receipt of

comments to the docket, and the JTA, the FAA decided to update its

information. The invitees were selected as a result of their

organizations' and schools' past involvement in this regulatory review.

The FAA is committed to developing rules that are fair and reasonable,

and yet maintain a high degree of pilot training and qualification. The

following organizations and schools attended these meetings: General

Aviation and Manufacturing Association (GAMA), National Air Transport

Association (NATA), Jeppesen-Sanderson, National Association of Flight

Instructors (NAFI), Balloon Federation of America (BFA), Farrington

Aircraft, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), AOPA Safety

Foundation, Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Helicopter

Association International (HAI), Soaring Society of America (SSA),

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), Parks College of St.

Louis, and American Flyers.

There have been some preliminary discussions for conducting a Phase

3 of this regulatory review. However, no schedule has been established

for Phase 3. If a Phase 3 is conducted, it would be a comprehensive,

long-term effort to address pilot, flight instructor, and ground

instructor requirements for the year 2010 and beyond.

1. Notice No. 92-10, Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training,

Testing, and Checking at Training Centers

On August 11, 1992, the FAA issued notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) No. 92-10, ``Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training,

Testing, and Checking at Training Centers'' (57 FR 35888-35938).

Although the flight simulator NPRM contains several issues related to

this NPRM, the FAA has tried to make these rulemaking projects separate

and distinct from one another. Despite the efforts to coordinate these

two rulemaking actions, some overlap still exists. However, if any

discrepancies have occurred, the matter will be resolved in the final

rule.

2. Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Petition

On January 3, 1994, the FAA published, without comment or

endorsement, a petition for rulemaking submitted by EAA (59 FR 31). In

their petition, the EAA requested the following changes to the

recreational pilot certificate:

(1) Eliminating the requirement that a recreational pilot hold at

least a 3rd-class medical certificate;

(2) Requiring a recreational pilot to self certify that he or she

has no known medical deficiency that would make him or her unable to

fly;

(3) Eliminating the 50 nautical mile limitation for those pilots

who obtain additional training;

(4) Permitting a pilot with a higher certificate or rating who no

longer has a medical certificate, but who self certifies that he or she

is physically fit to fly, to exercise the privileges of a recreational

pilot certificate, subject to the limitations of the recreational pilot

certificate; and

(5) Eliminating the recreational pilot certificate limitations for

cross country, night flight, and flight into airspace requiring

communication with air traffic control for those pilots with higher

certificates and ratings who no longer have medical certificates, but

who self certify that they are physically fit to fly.

The comment period for the EAA petition closed on March 4, 1994.

There were over one thousand comments received. The majority of

commenters voiced overwhelming support for the petition, but did not

provide any data or analysis. Some commenters, including the Civil

Aviation Medical Association (CAMA), opposed the EAA petition. CAMA

expressed concern with the impact on public health and welfare of the

proposed elimination of medical standards for pilots who exercise the

privileges of a recreational pilot certificate. One specific concern of

those commenters who opposed the EAA petition was the carrying of

passengers by a pilot who does not hold a medical certificate. The FAA

has reviewed all comments received in developing this rulemaking

action. The vast majority of commenters responding to this petition

were individual members of the aviation community and many were members

of the EAA.

In this notice, the FAA is proposing to permit most of what EAA has

requested. The FAA is not proposing to eliminate the recreational pilot

limitations for cross country, night flight, and flight into airspace

requiring

[[Page 41163]]

communication with air traffic control for those pilots with higher

certificates and ratings who no longer have medical certificates, but

who self certify that they are physically fit to fly. The FAA may

reconsider this issue, however, based on comments received.

3. General Discussion of Principal Issues in This NPRM

This NPRM incorporates many of the concepts developed through the

public hearings, the JTA, and the public comments received in Docket

Nos. 25627 and 25910.

Docket No. 25627 was established to receive comments throughout the

entire regulatory review and will remain open until the FAA publishes a

notice of its closing. This docket facilitates the orderly flow of

collecting comments, recommendations, and ideas from the public. Docket

No. 25910 was established to receive specific comments from the public

on NPRM No. 89-14, which was the Phase 1 proposal.

The proposals in this NPRM cover a broad range of issues. The major

proposals included in this NPRM are as follows: (1) Clarify and

standardize terminology; (2) establish a new powered-lift category

rating; (3) establish separate class ratings for nonpowered and powered

gliders; (4) establish a flight instructor certificate in the lighter-

than-air category; (5) establish instrument ratings for single-engine

airplanes, multiengine airplanes, airships, and powered-lifts; (6)

revise the recency of experience requirements; (7) revise recreational

pilot certification and authorization requirements; (8) require human

factors training for all certificates and ratings; (9) replace flight

proficiency requirements for training and certification with more

general approved areas of operation; (10) revise the training times for

the aeronautical experience requirements to permit the student and the

instructor to tailor the training to the individual student's needs;

(11) remove and reserve part 143 and establish a new subpart I in part

61 for ground instructors; (12) require ground instructor certificates

to be based on aircraft category; (13) require applicants for a ground

instructor certificate to accomplish a practical test; (14) revise the

certification and test courses in part 141 to accommodate all aircraft

categories and new technology; (15) establish a check instructor

position to perform student and instructor checks and tests at part 141

pilot schools; (16) delete exceptions that permit pilots to be

certified without meeting the English language fluency requirements;

(17) revise the medical eligibility requirements for applying for all

certificate levels and ratings by only requiring applicants to hold a

third class medical certificate; and (18) delete the requirement for

recreational pilots to hold a medical certificate.

Due to the length of this notice, the preamble addresses the

proposed changes to parts 61, 141, and 143 in two major sections.

First, a general subject discussion of major issues is presented.

Second, proposed changes are discussed briefly in a section-by-section

analysis.

It should be noted that parts 61 and 141 are republished here in

their entirety. All sections, except those specifically noted, include

a modified format, standardized terminology, and the deletion of gender

references. Several sections, which are noted in the section-by-section

discussion contain no revisions or editorial changes. Three of these

sections, Secs. 61.58, 61.63, and 61.67, have been proposed to be

revised in NPRM No. 92-10, ``Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot

Training, Testing, and Checking at Training Centers,'' (57 FR 35888-

35938; August 11, 1992). In addition to proposed additions, deletions,

and substantive changes to the regulations, the FAA seeks in this

proposal to continue its policy of simplifying regulations through

editorial style changes. Wherever possible, the rules are broken down

into brief sentences and outline format. Therefore, some section

numbering would change under this proposal. In addition, the FAA has

proposed numerous non-substantive changes to the regulations, and where

necessary has proposed numerous revisions involving clarity and

conformity.

B. Part 61 Issues

1. Definition of Terms

The FAA proposes to establish a new Sec. 61.1a, ``Clarification of

Terms.'' The intent of the section is to ensure more consistent use of

terms throughout the text under part 61. The terms to be clarified

include:

a. Aeronautical Experience

This term means pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight

simulator, or flight training device for meeting the appropriate

training and flight time for an airman certificate, rating, flight

review, or recency of flight experience, of part 61.

b. Airman Certificate

This term describes a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot

certificate), flight instructor certificate, or a ground instructor

certificate that is issued under part 61. This would not include other

airmen as described in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended,

which also applies the term to repairmen, mechanics, aircraft

dispatchers, parachute riggers, other flight crewmembers, and air

traffic controllers.

c. Authorized Ground Instructor

This proposal includes a provision to incorporate part 143, Ground

Instructors, into part 61. The term would describe a person who holds a

current ground instructor certificate with ratings that apply to the

training being given, and who is authorized by the Administrator to

give that training.

d. Authorized Flight Instructor

This term would clarify that a flight instructor must hold a

current flight instructor certificate with ratings that apply to the

training being given, and be authorized by the Administrator to give

that training.

e. Cross-Country Time

The FAA proposes to describe cross country time for three separate

circumstances: (1) For persons who hold a private, commercial, or

airline transport pilot certificate; (2) for persons applying for a

private or commercial pilot certificate or instrument rating; and (3)

for military pilots. These issues are addressed further in the

discussion of logging of pilot time.

f. Examiner

The term would refer to persons authorized to conduct practical

tests or knowledge tests under part 61.

g. Flight Training

The term would refer to training received from an authorized flight

instructor in actual flight in an aircraft.

h. Ground Training

The term would refer to training other than flight training

received from either an authorized ground instructor or an authorized

flight instructor.

i. Instrument Approach

This term would define an instrument approach as an approach

procedure defined in part 97 and conducted to an established minimum

descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH), or if necessary, to a

higher altitude selected for safety reasons by ATC.

j. Instrument Training

The term would refer to time in which instrument training is

received from an authorized flight instructor under actual or simulated

instrument flight conditions.

[[Page 41164]]

k. Knowledge Test

The term ``knowledge test'' would replace ``written test.'' The FAA

believes the term ``knowledge test'' is a more inclusive term,

referring to either tests administered with pencil and paper or by

computer on the aeronautical knowledge areas in part 61.

l. Practical Test

The term ``practical test'' would include both oral and flight

testing or testing in an approved flight simulator or flight training

device on the approved areas of operation for an airman certificate,

rating, or authorization.

m. Supervised Pilot-in-Command (PIC) Time

The term ``supervised PIC time'' would mean aeronautical experience

flight time in an aircraft that applies to either a student pilot or

pilot who is not rated in the aircraft, but is under the supervision

and authorization to conduct the flight from an authorized flight

instructor. The purpose for this proposal is to permit student pilots

and pilots who are not rated in the aircraft, to log PIC time when the

sole manipulator of the controls. This will be a change to the FAA's

existing policy on who can log PIC time. In the past, the logging of

PIC time in Sec. 61.51 required the person to be a rated pilot, the

sole manipulator of the controls, and be rated in the aircraft.

Furthermore, depending on the crew compliment specifications set forth

in the aircraft's flight manual, the flight instructor may be onboard

the aircraft in an assigned crewmember position. The flight instructor

is expected to perform essential crew member functions, evaluate the

person's ability to act as a PIC, and as always perform essential

safety-related functions in the case of emergencies.

n. Training Time

A definition of the term ``training time'' would mean training

received: (1) In actual flight from an authorized flight instructor;

(2) on the ground from an authorized ground or flight instructor; or

(3) in a flight simulator or flight training device from an authorized

ground or flight instructor.

2. Areas of Operation

The FAA proposes a significant change in the regulatory

descriptions of the procedures and maneuvers required of applicants for

the various pilot certificates and ratings. Under the proposed new

concept, the FAR would specify general areas of operation to be covered

in flight training and practical tests for pilot and flight instructor

certificates and ratings and in training and testing for ground

instructors. Many specific flight proficiency requirements currently in

the FAR would be deleted. The specific tasks for the training and

practical tests would be listed in the standards for each practical

test for each certificate and rating. The purpose of this approach is

to permit greater flexibility in updating the training and testing

maneuvers and procedures required of pilot and flight instructor

applicants.

For example, under current Sec. 61.107 an applicant for a private

pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class

rating must receive training on ``emergency operations, including

simulated aircraft and equipment malfunctions.'' The proposed areas of

operation for the same applicant would require training on ``emergency

operations;'' however, the tasks for the required training and

practical test for an airplane category and single-engine class rating

would include a task for emergency approach and landing (simulated) and

a task for system and equipment malfunctions.

For convenience, the areas of operation for each category and, in

some cases, for each class of aircraft under each certificate or rating

would be listed separately. This would result in a certain amount of

redundancy because many areas of operation would be common to more than

one category and class of aircraft. However, the FAA proposes this

method of listing areas of operation to avoid requiring users to

consult more than one list to identify the areas pertinent to their

individual situation.

In conjunction with using general terms to refer to maneuvers, the

term ``slow flight'' would be used in place of previously used terms

such as ``minimum controllable airspeed'' and the more recent term,

``flight at slow airspeeds with realistic distractions.'' The FAA is

not proposing a change in the concept; the details of the maneuvers and

procedures will continue to be established through the appropriate

practical test standards.

The use of areas of operation is consistent with public response to

the issue addressed in the Notice of Hearings of whether the specific

tasks or requirements in the Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be

included in the FAR. The FAA believes the PTS should remain separate

from the regulations to maintain the flexibility needed for revising

and updating the PTS. Some commenters suggested listing specific areas

of operation rather than specific pilot operations in the regulations

regarding pilot operations.

The use of areas of operation would permit the practical test

requirements, and hence, specific training requirements, to keep pace

with technological change. For example, the current rule lists pilot

operation procedures for equipment that is no longer common and does

not include procedures for newer equipment (e.g., Electronic Flight

Instrument System (EFIS), LORAN-C).

3. New Aircraft Category, Classes

This proposal would establish a new aircraft category for pilot

certification--the powered-lift. The FAA also proposes to establish two

aircraft classes within the glider category: powered glider and

nonpowered glider.

a. Powered-Lift

The FAA anticipates that one of the most significant future

developments in the NAS will be the introduction of a new category of

aircraft, the powered-lift, into civil application. According to the

FAA's Interim Airworthiness Criteria Powered-Lift Transport Category

Aircraft (Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation

Administration, Southwest Region, July 1988), powered-lifts resemble

airplanes and rotorcraft in many respects. The document addresses

airworthiness standards for multiengine turbine transport category

aircraft that use power for lift, propulsion, and control.

Powered-lift aircraft have vertical take-off and landing and

hovering capability like helicopters, but they also may fly at higher

airspeeds like airplanes. The low airspeed capability may be provided

by either aircraft configuration changes (tilt-wing, tilt-rotor, tilt-

propeller), thrust vectoring, direct-lift engines, or other powered-

lift concepts.

Powered-lift aircraft will require a new set of pilot knowledge,

skills, and abilities. Therefore, the FAA proposes to create a new

powered-lift aircraft category rating in Sec. 61.5 for certification of

private, commercial, and airline transport pilots, and for flight

instructor and ground instructor certificates. The FAA also proposes to

create a corresponding instrument rating for powered-lift aircraft. The

FAA does not propose to extend recreational pilot certification in

proposed subpart D to include the powered-lift category rating.

The FAA has considered various approaches to pilot certification

for powered-lift aircraft. For example, the FAA considered whether

powered-lift should be a separate category, with or without class

ratings, such as tilt-rotor, tilt-wing, ducted fan, and vectored

thrust. Another approach considered

[[Page 41165]]

was creating a powered-lift class rating within the rotorcraft

category. The FAA also considered proposing to require a type rating

for every make and model of powered-lift aircraft.

Based on available information, the FAA has concluded that safety

needs will be met by establishing a separate aircraft category only.

Under proposed Sec. 61.31, type ratings would not be required for

powered-lift aircraft except for large aircraft or as specified by the

Administrator under aircraft type certificate procedures. The FAA has

determined that requiring additional requirements beyond this type

rating requirement at this time might discourage the development of

smaller powered-lift aircraft intended for general aviation. Thus, it

does not appear feasible to establish class ratings at this time.

In general, the aeronautical experience hour-requirements for

powered-lift category ratings would parallel those for airplanes and

helicopters. For example, proposed Sec. 61.87, Solo flight

requirements, would require powered-lift student pilots to meet the

same requirements as both airplane and helicopter student pilots.

Similar overlap would occur in the areas of operation for private and

commercial pilot training and certification.

Aeronautical knowledge requirements for commercial pilot

certification would be the same as those for helicopters (a single set

of aeronautical knowledge areas is proposed for all aircraft categories

at the private pilot level). Areas of operation for the instrument

rating under proposed Sec. 61.65 would be the same as for airplanes.

b. Glider Class Ratings

The FAA proposes to divide the glider category into two classes for

pilot certificates and ratings: powered glider and nonpowered glider.

The term ``powered glider'' includes self-launching sailplanes, powered

sailplanes, motorized sailplanes, and motorgliders. Some of these

aircraft are designed primarily for high performance and competitive

flying; others are more suitable for training. The low power-to-weight

ratio and relatively low wing loadings generally found in powered

gliders produce performance characteristics that are similar to low-

powered, light fixed-wing aircraft. Specific knowledge and skills are

needed for the safe and efficient operation of these aircraft in the

NAS.

Powered gliders may be flown long distances and through complicated

airspace by pilots holding only glider category ratings, which does not

imply knowledge of communication or radio navigation procedures.

Powered gliders require knowledge levels similar to those of powered

aircraft. The FAA believes that another option to establishing glider

class ratings would be to treat powered gliders as single-engine

airplanes. However, the FAA believes that treating powered gliders as

airplanes would be a more restrictive approach. Therefore, the FAA

proposes to pursue the class rating approach.

The FAA proposes to convert current glider pilot and flight

instructor certificates to the new class ratings over a 2-year period.

A person who currently holds a private or commercial pilot certificate

with a glider category rating could also obtain a nonpowered class

rating if the person passed a practical test in a nonpowered glider, or

obtain a powered class rating if the person passed a practical test in

a powered glider.

Currently, the FAR does not address powered gliders. For example,

Secs. 61.107 and 61.127, which address flight proficiency for private

and commercial pilot applicants, require training in glider launches by

ground (auto or winch) or aero tows, and limits the applicant's

certificate to the type of tow selected. The PTS for gliders include a

powered glider self-launch limitation and specific tasks for powered

gliders. The FAA also has addressed the unique characteristics of

powered gliders in Advisory Circular (AC) 61-94, ``Pilot Transition

Course for Self-Launching or Powered Sailplanes (Motorgliders).'' The

AC recommends procedures and standards for glider pilots who want to

accomplish a practical test in powered gliders.

For holders of a flight instructor-glider certificate, the

conversion would be based on the type of training the instructor has

given. To obtain a flight instructor certificate for nonpowered

gliders, an instructor would be required to have given at least 20

hours of flight training in a nonpowered glider and recommended at

least one student for a practical test for a glider category rating

(the proposed rule does not specify powered or nonpowered), and that

student would have to have passed. To obtain a flight instructor

certificate for powered gliders, a flight instructor with a glider

category rating could be eligible to obtain a flight instructor

certificate with a glider category and powered class rating if the

instructor had given 20 hours of flight training in a powered glider

and recommended at least one student for a practical test for a glider

category and powered class rating, and that student would have to have

passed.

4. New Instrument Ratings

The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.5 to establish four additional

instrument ratings: Airship, single-engine airplane, multiengine

airplane, and powered-lift. Corresponding flight instructor instrument

ratings for those specific aircraft also are proposed.

a. Airship Instrument Rating

Under the current FAR, the commercial pilot certificate for

airships includes training and testing on instrument flight maneuvers

and procedures and instrument flight rules (IFR). Currently, there is

no separate instrument rating for airship pilots. The proposal to

establish a separate instrument rating for airships is in response to

current trends in design and certification of airships. These trends

are toward smaller airships with specific intended uses, such as

daytime aerial advertising. These airships are not designed or equipped

for flight in instrument conditions, and therefore, pilots who train in

these aircraft must either incur the expense of training in IFR-

equipped airships or seek an exemption from the regulation. Industry

experience indicates that the smaller, non-IFR-equipped airships in

which the pilots train are generally the same airships those pilots

will fly when they are certificated. Therefore, the FAA has concluded

it is reasonable to separate the instrument rating requirements from

the commercial pilot certification requirements.

Historically, the airship industry has consisted of larger blimps

and dirigibles that are certificated for operations including IFR,

visual flight rules (VFR), and day and night flight. But very few

airships operate in the United States, and the growth of the industry

has been slow, with few pilots being certificated. However, the FAA

notes that smaller, foreign-built airships are being operated in the

United States. It is hoped that these signs of growth of the industry

will be accompanied by the need for more airship pilots. A separate

airship instrument rating will remove an obstacle to certification of

commercial airship pilots desiring to fly these smaller airships, and

help foster growth of this small segment of the aviation industry.

The FAA proposes to delete airship instrument knowledge

requirements from existing Sec. 61.125 and delete current Sec. 61.135,

which refers to aeronautical experience requirements. The FAA proposes

to incorporate in Sec. 61.65, flight training and skill requirements

for airship instrument ratings. For pilots who do not hold an

[[Page 41166]]

airship instrument rating, Sec. 61.139 would be amended to require a

limitation to the commercial pilot certificate-airship that prohibits

the carriage of passengers for hire in airships on cross-country flight

or at night.

The proposal includes a system of conversion of current commercial

certificates to commercial certificates with an instrument rating.

Under proposed Sec. 61.5, ``Certificates and ratings issued under this

part,'' the holder of a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-

than-air category rating and an airship class rating would be permitted

to exchange that certificate for a certificate with an instrument-

airship rating, if that person receives an endorsement from an

authorized flight instructor who holds an instrument-airship rating on

the flight instructor certificate, and that flight instructor has

observed that person perform 10 hours of PIC time in an airship under

IFR, or that person passes the instrument proficiency test of

Sec. 61.57 in an airship, and the test was conducted by an examiner.

b. Instrument Ratings--Airplanes

The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.5 to establish separate

instrument ratings for single-engine and multiengine airplanes and to

establish corresponding instrument ratings for flight instructor

certificates.

Under the proposal a person who passes the practical test for an

instrument rating in a single-engine airplane would be issued a pilot

certificate with an instrument-airplane single-engine rating. If that

person holds a multiengine airplane class rating and desires an

instrument-airplane multiengine rating, the person would be required to

pass a practical test for an instrument rating in a multiengine

airplane. The proposal would permit a person who holds both a single

engine and multiengine airplane class rating and passes a practical

test for an instrument-airplane multiengine rating, to be allowed to

exercise instrument privileges in single-engine airplanes.

In addition, a person who desires to train students who want an

instrument-airplane single-engine rating would be required to pass a

practical test for a flight instructor certificate with an instrument-

airplane single-engine rating. If that person desires to train students

who want an instrument-airplane multiengine rating, the person would be

required to pass a practical test for a flight instructor certificate

with an instrument-airplane multiengine rating. A person who passes a

practical test for a flight instructor-instrument-airplane multiengine

rating and also holds a flight instructor single-engine airplane class

rating would be permitted to train students for an instrument-airplane

single-engine rating.

This proposal is consistent with FAA policy in effect since October

1984, which requires applicants for multiengine airplane class ratings

to demonstrate instrument proficiency on their multiengine practical

test if they have an airplane instrument rating and desire IFR

privileges for their multiengine rating. The policy was instituted

based on an NTSB recommendation that followed an investigation of a

1981 multiengine airplane accident. The NTSB concluded that the

accident may have been caused by excessive airloads generated by a

nose-up control input by the pilot at high speed. This resulted in an

in-flight breakup of the aircraft. The pilot had acquired his

instrument rating in a single engine airplane, had limited experience

in operation of multiengine airplanes in instrument meteorological

conditions, and had no multiengine instrument training.

Under the current FAA policy, applicants for a multiengine airplane

class rating who hold an instrument rating for airplanes are required

to demonstrate instrument proficiency in multiengine airplanes. If the

applicant chooses not to demonstrate instrument proficiency, their

multiengine airplane rating is limited to VFR privileges only. If an

applicant with single-engine and multiengine class ratings takes the

instrument practical test in a multiengine airplane, no restriction is

added to the certificate. For example, a certificated pilot who holds a

multiengine class rating with instrument privileges for airplanes, and

who applies for an airplane single-engine class rating, may, upon

successful completion of the airplane single-engine practical test,

exercise instrument privileges in both classes of aircraft without

showing instrument proficiency in single-engine airplanes.

The FAA proposes to allow 2 years for pilots and flight instructors

who currently hold single-engine and multiengine airplane class ratings

and an instrument--airplane rating to convert to the new single-engine

and multiengine instrument ratings. With the exception of those pilots

who received an instrument rating before the current policy became

effective, the proposed conversion would ensure that pilots who obtain

instrument privileges in multiengine airplanes have demonstrated

instrument proficiency in multiengine airplanes.

Under the proposed rule, a person who holds a private or commercial

pilot certificate with an airplane category rating and an instrument--

airplane rating would be permitted to exchange that certificate for the

new proposed certificate. The new private or commercial pilot

certificate, as appropriate, would have either an instrument--airplane

single-engine rating or instrument--multiengine class rating. For

example, a person would be entitled to obtain an instrument--airplane

single-engine rating if that person had an airplane single-engine class

rating and had satisfactorily completed the practical test for an

instrument rating in a single-engine airplane.

Under the proposal, a person could exchange their certificate for a

certificate with an instrument-airplane multiengine rating if one of

the following conditions were met:

(1) That person had an airplane multiengine class rating and had

satisfactorily completed the practical test for an instrument rating in

a multiengine airplane;

(2) That person had an airplane multiengine class rating and had

satisfactorily completed the practical test for an instrument rating in

a single engine airplane and also demonstrated instrument proficiency

during the practical test for the multiengine class rating such that

the person's certificate did not bear the limitation ``Airplane

Multiengine VFR Only;'' or

(3) That person had an airplane multiengine class rating and had

satisfactorily completed the practical test for an instrument rating in

a single-engine airplane before October 1, 1984, the date on which the

FAA policy, which requires multiengine candidates to demonstrate

instrument proficiency when seeking instrument privileges, took effect.

Under the proposal, in any of the above three cases, a pilot with a

single-engine airplane class rating would also be entitled to the

privileges of an instrument-airplane single-engine rating. A person

with a flight instructor certificate and an instrument-airplane rating

would be able to obtain a flight instructor certificate with an

instrument-airplane single-engine or an instrument-airplane multiengine

rating.

A person would be able to receive a flight instructor certificate

with an instrument-airplane single-engine rating by having given at

least 20 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane for the

issuance of an instrument-airplane rating as a certificated flight

instructor. The person also would be required to have

[[Page 41167]]

recommended at least one student for a practical test for the issuance

of an instrument-airplane rating and the recommended student would have

had to pass the practical test.

A person would be able to receive a flight instructor certificate

with an instrument-airplane multiengine rating by having given at least

20 hours of flight training in a multiengine airplane for the issuance

of an instrument-airplane rating as a certificated flight instructor.

The person also would be required to have recommended at least one

student for a practical test for the issuance of an instrument-airplane

rating and the recommended student would have had to pass the practical

test.

The FAA invites comments on the conversion process proposed for the

instrument-airplane ratings.

c. Instrument Rating--Powered-lift

In addition to proposing a new powered-lift aircraft category

rating, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.5 to establish a new

instrument rating for powered-lift. The FAA also proposes to establish

a corresponding powered-lift instrument rating for the flight

instructor certificate. The FAA invites comments on the proposal to

establish this new instrument-powered-lift rating and the powered-lift

instrument rating for the flight instructor certificate.

5. Lighter-Than-Air Flight Instructor Certificate

Under current regulations, any commercially licensed lighter-than-

air pilot may provide flight training in the class of aircraft in which

commercial privileges are held (i.e., airship or free balloon). A

lighter-than-air commercial pilot who gives training under the

authority of existing Sec. 61.139 is not bound by any of the

recordkeeping requirements, authorizations, and limitations that apply

to certificated flight instructors for the other categories of

aircraft. Under the current PTS, commercial lighter-than-air applicants

must be tested in all phases of the flight instructor area even if the

applicant does not plan to train.

Several balloon operators who made presentations at the public

hearings or submitted comments to the docket favored the establishment

of a flight instructor-balloon rating. Two balloon organizations

indicated that, with the exception of those instructors associated with

part 141 schools, the current training in balloons does not provide

quality control measures for flight instructors. Several commenters

said that the training and renewal requirements for balloon instructors

should be the same or similar to those required of other aircraft

flight instructors. The commenters also recommended that a proposal for

a flight instructor-balloon rating should require: (1) A minimum number

of hours as PIC; (2) a biennial renewal requirement; and (3) a passing

grade on written and practical tests. In addition, the commenters

recommended that such a proposal should provide for existing balloon

instructors to convert to the new system.

Comments also were submitted to the docket that opposed the

addition of a flight instructor-balloon rating. One commenter stated a

majority of balloon instructors would not elect to obtain a flight

instructor certificate, creating a hardship for future pilots. Several

commenters also disagreed with the suggestion that a specific number of

hours as PIC should be required of current commercial pilots to obtain

their flight instructor certificates. The commenters stated that

existing commercial pilots have earned instructor privileges in

accordance with today's FAR and that there is no need for a minimum

hour cutoff.

The FAA has determined that a flight instructor certificate should

be created for the lighter-than-air category. The present system of

incorporating training privileges into commercial certificates is a

burden on commercial pilots who do not instruct. The intent of this

proposal is to ensure that those who perform flight training in all

aircraft categories and classes are subject to flight instructor

training and renewal requirements. The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 61.5

to establish a flight instructor-airship rating and a flight

instructor-balloon rating.

The proposed revision to Sec. 61.3 includes a clause to permit

holders of a commercial certificate with an airship or a free balloon

class rating to train in the appropriate aircraft for 2 years after

issuance of the final rule. A revision to Sec. 61.187 is proposed that

would require a person who trains an applicant for a lighter-than-air

flight instructor certificate to meet the same requirements as a person

who trains other flight instructor applicants.

Under the FAA's proposal, a person who trains flight instructor

applicants for a lighter-than-air category rating would be required to

have held a flight instructor certificate for at least 24 months and to

have given at least 20 hours of flight training. This is the same

minimum-hour requirement recommended by the Great Eastern Balloon

Association during the public hearings. The FAA also has included a

provision for a person who trains flight instructor applicants in an

FAA-approved course. This person could either meet the 24-month and 20-

hour requirement or: (1) Have trained and endorsed at least 5 persons

for a pilot certificate or rating practical test; (2) have a record

that reflects that at least 80 percent of the persons whom the flight

instructor has endorsed for a practical test passed that test on their

first attempt; and (3) have given at least 40 hours of flight training

as a certificated flight instructor.

The proposal also includes a provision for practicing lighter-than-

air instructors (with commercial certificates) that requires them to

obtain flight instructor certificates with lighter-than-air category

ratings without passing a practical test. The proposal would revise

Sec. 61.201 to provide a 2-year transition period for holders of a

commercial certificate with an airship or a free balloon class rating

to obtain a flight instructor certificate with an airship or a balloon

rating. If this proposal is adopted, the FAA is considering allowing

the conversion process to begin before the effective date of the

proposed rule.

Under the proposal, to obtain a flight instructor certificate with

a lighter-than-air category rating, an applicant would need to present

a valid commercial certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating

and the appropriate class rating and have given at least 20 hours of

flight training in airships or free balloons, as appropriate, as a

commercial pilot. The applicant would also be required to have

recommended at least one student for the issuance of a rating in an

airship or balloon, as appropriate, and the student would have had to

pass the practical test.

The proposal includes a revision to Sec. 61.125 to remove the

requirements for applicants for a commercial certificate, with a

lighter-than-air category rating and an airship or balloon class

rating, to obtain knowledge on training.

6. Revision of Ground Instructor Certificates and Ratings; Inclusion in

Part 61

Part 143, ``Ground Instructors,'' is outdated and inadequate for

defining ground instructors' privileges and limitations, or their

training and certification requirements. Under the current system, the

ground instructor certificate is obtained on the basis of written tests

only, with no practical test. Although a recency of experience

requirement exists, there is no provision for renewal of ground

instructor certificates. In addition, ground instructor certificates

will be revised to distinguish ratings on the basis of

[[Page 41168]]

aircraft category (i.e., ground instructor-airplane, ground instructor-

rotorcraft, ground instructor-glider, etc).

To make the ground instructor certificate more compatible with the

demands of current training requirements, the FAA proposes to revise

regulations on ground instructors and address the ground instructor

certificate in a new subpart I in part 61. Current part 143, Ground

Instructors, would be removed and reserved. Under the proposal, ground

instructor certificates would be specific to aircraft categories. A

practical test, as well as a knowledge test, would be required. The

ground instructor certificate would still not expire, but new recency

of experience requirements are proposed in order for a person to

continue exercising the privileges of the certificate. This proposal

would establish recordkeeping requirements for ground instructors and

clarify ground instructors' privileges and limitations.

During the public hearings, commenters agreed that parts 61 and 143

could be combined, provided the ground instructor certificate is

retained. Commenters, including Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

(ERAU), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and General Aviation

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) recommended that applicants for a

ground instructor certificate be required to pass a practical test. The

test would include an oral segment, but not a flight segment.

This proposal is based largely on the public comment. The proposal

also reflects guidance contained in FAA Order 8700.1, ``General

Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook,'' chapter 159, ``Issuance of

Ground Instructor Certificate and Added Ratings.'' subpart I is modeled

on existing and proposed regulations for training and certification of

flight instructors. The intent of the proposal is to recognize the

importance of proper ground training and to make the ground instructor

certificate more meaningful.

A number of issues, particularly administrative issues, currently

addressed in part 143, such as replacement of a lost certificate,

testing procedures, and change of address, are addressed in there

respective categories in the proposal, along with other certificates

and ratings. The proposed subpart I primarily addresses issues unique

to the ground instructor certificate. Some of the major differences

between proposed subpart I and part 143 would include the following:

7. Eligibility and Tests

The proposal for the ground instructor certificate and rating would

establish a requirement for English-language ability, and would include

the testing requirements. The required tests would include a test on

the fundamentals of instructing, except for persons who are

certificated teachers at or above the seventh grade level, employed as

college or university instructors, or already hold a ground or flight

instructor certificate. An additional knowledge test specific to the

aircraft rating sought and an instrument knowledge test in the case of

an instrument rating, would be required as well as a practical test.

Another proposed provision would preclude the holder of a flight

instructor certificate from taking tests for and obtaining a ground

instructor certificate with the same aircraft category as already

specified on the person's flight instructor certificate. This provision

is needed because the ground instructor certificate would not grant

additional privileges, but the process of obtaining it only adds to the

FAA's workload because of the additional tests. However, the applicant

may seek a ground instructor rating for a different aircraft category

(i.e., a person who holds flight instructor-airplane single engine may

apply for a ground instructor-rotorcraft, etc.).

Some commenters recommended that a single ``aviation instructor

certificate,'' be established in lieu of separate flight or ground

instructor certificates. An aviation instructor certificate could

specify ground or flight instructor privileges or both. After reviewing

this recommendation, the FAA believes the required knowledge, skills,

and abilities needed to instruct in the different aircraft categories

and classes and differences between flight instructing and ground

instructing makes this difficult to comprehend how this would be better

than the current system. However, the FAA does request comments on this

issue.

8. Training Requirements

An applicant for a ground instructor certificate would have to

receive ground training on required aeronautical knowledge areas and

fundamentals of instructing from a person who meets minimum experience

requirements. The person giving the training would have to have at

least 24 months experience as a ground instructor or flight instructor,

and have given at least 40 hours of flight or ground training. However,

if the ground instructor candidate is receiving training in a course

approved under part 141, the person giving the training could either

meet the 24-month and 40-hour experience requirement, or could have

given 100 hours of ground or flight training. As an alternative, the

applicant, under the proposal, could also accomplish the preparation

through an independent, or home study program. Such preparation would

have to be reviewed by an authorized instructor who meets the same

experience requirements; the instructor would be required to sign an

endorsement of the applicant's independent course of study.

9. Proficiency

The practical test for a ground instructor certificate would cover

approved areas of operation including preparing and conducting lesson

plans, evaluating student knowledge, and analyzing and correcting

common student errors. An applicant would be required to teach a ground

school lesson as part of the practical test. The training for the

practical test would have to be given by a person who meets the same

minimum experience requirements as for the knowledge test, although no

minimum amount of training would be specified. The practical test would

be administered by an examiner. An applicant for an additional ground

instructor rating would not be required to take a practical test.

10. Privileges and Limitations

Subject to the limitations specified in part 61, a ground

instructor would be permitted to give ground training for aeronautical

knowledge areas; give endorsements required for pilot, ground

instructor, and flight instructor certificates and ratings; give the

ground training portion of the flight review; and give recommendations

for knowledge tests.

11. Records

Under the proposed recordkeeping requirements, a ground instructor

would note in a student's logbook or training record information for

each training session; i.e., the amount of time of the lesson, date,

and topics. The ground instructor would be required to maintain a

record of the following information: the name of each student whose

logbook or training record that instructor endorsed for satisfactory

completion of a course; the name of each student endorsed for a

knowledge test and the results of the test; the name of each student

endorsed or recommended for a practical test and the date of the

endorsement or recommendation; and a copy of the training syllabus for

each student trained. The records would be required

[[Page 41169]]

to be kept for 3 years. In addition, although the proposed rule does

not specify this, ground instructors should log the time during which

they give ground training, to demonstrate sufficient experience giving

ground training to ground instructor applicants.

12. Recency of Experience

Existing Sec. 143.19 specifies that a ground instructor may not

perform the duties of a ground instructor unless, within the 12 months

before intending to perform the duties, the instructor has served for

at least 3 months as a ground instructor, or the FAA has determined

that the instructor meets the standards prescribed in part 143.

Proposed Sec. 61.225, ``Recency of experience for a holder of a ground

instructor certificate,'' would state that a person's ground instructor

certificate remains current for providing ground training for airman

certification purposes, provided that person has either: (1) Trained at

least one student and endorsed that student for a practical test; or

(2) received an endorsement from a flight instructor or ground

instructor indicating that the person had demonstrated satisfactory

knowledge in the areas of operation that apply to the person's ground

instructor ratings. The FAA believes these provisions will ensure that

ground instructors stay current on industry developments, without

imposing significant costs and burdens on persons who hold ground

instructor certificates.

13. Conversion to New System of Ground Instructor Certificate

The proposal would establish a 2-year period during which holders

of ground instructor certificates could convert those certificates to

the new system. The holder of a ground instructor certificate with a

basic rating or an advanced rating would be permitted to exchange that

certificate for a ground instructor certificate with an airplane

category rating. The holder of a ground instructor certificate with an

advanced rating and an instrument rating would be permitted to exchange

that certificate for a ground instructor certificate with an airplane

category rating and instrument rating. The holder of a ground

instructor certificate who also holds a flight instructor certificate

would be permitted to exchange the ground instructor certificate for a

ground instructor certificate with the same aircraft category and

instrument ratings as on that person's flight instructor certificate.

14. Medical Certificates

a. Medical Eligibility Requirement for Applying for a Pilot or Flight

Instructor Certificate

The FAA proposes to change the medical certificate requirements for

eligibility for pilot and flight instructor certificates. Under the

proposed revision to Sec. 61.23 and other sections, applicants would

only need a third-class medical certificate to be eligible to apply for

a private, commercial, or an airline transport pilot or flight

instructor certificate. Requirements for exercising the privileges of

each certificate would remain as they are now. That is, a second-class

medical certificate still would be required to exercise the privileges

of a commercial pilot certificate, and a first-class medical

certificate would be required to exercise the privileges of an ATP

certificate.

The concept behind the proposed changes is that pilots should be

encouraged to continue training and earning new pilot certificates,

regardless of whether they intend to use the certificates. In some

cases, pilots may qualify for a third-class medical certificate, which

is sufficient for undergoing training and taking a practical test for a

commercial or ATP certificate, but may not meet the requirements for a

second- or first-class medical certificate. The FAA believes that lack

of the more stringent medical certificate should not prevent the pilots

from earning the more advanced pilot certificates and enhancing their

pilot skills and proficiency.

The FAA proposes to include a provision in Sec. 61.39,

``Prerequisites for practical tests,'' requiring an applicant to hold

at least a third-class medical certificate, if a medical certificate is

required. Section 61.39 currently requires a practical test applicant

to hold a current medical certificate that applies to the certificate

sought or, in the case of a rating to be added to a pilot certificate,

at least a valid third-class medical certificate. Corresponding changes

are also proposed to the subparts addressing the various certificates

and ratings.

b. Medical Requirements for Recreational Pilots and Holders of a Higher

Pilot Certificate Exercising the Privileges of a Recreational Pilot

Certificate

The FAA is proposing to allow pilots who hold recreational pilot

certificates and those higher rated pilots who elect only to exercise

recreational pilot privileges to operate aircraft without a medical

certificate. Specifically, this proposal would include student pilots

who are seeking a recreational pilot certificate, holders of a

recreational pilot certificate, and holders of a higher pilot

certificate who elect only to exercise the privileges of a recreational

pilot certificate. This proposal would be a significant departure from

long-standing FAA policy.

Since the early 1930s all pilots, except glider and balloon pilots,

have been required to hold medical certificates in order to exercise

the privileges of their pilot certificates. The FAA determined that

medical certificates were required for the purpose of ensuring the

safety of the pilot in command and passengers, and also for the safety

of people and property on the ground. As a result of the EAA petition

discussed earlier and the interest shown in the general aviation

community, the FAA is seeking wider comment on whether recreational

pilots and holders of a higher pilot certificate who elect to exercise

the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate should be required

to hold medical certificates. The FAA is also seeking data on any

safety or other public interest concerns that may arise from obviating

any review of medical qualifications by medical professionals.

Pilots applying for a recreational pilot certificate would be

required to certify at the time of application that they have no known

medical condition or deficiency that makes them unable to operate the

aircraft in a safe manner. This requirement parallels the provisions

that are now provided to balloon and glider pilots under the current

rules. This proposal would prohibit pilots from exercising the

privileges of a recreational pilot certificate if they have a known

medical condition or deficiency that would make them unable to operate

the aircraft in a safe manner or if they are taking any medication or

receiving other treatment for a medical condition that would make them

unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. (This ongoing

obligation is discussed in more detail under the section-by-section

analysis.) The FAA is not proposing specific medical standards for this

pilot self-evaluation but instead are proposing that pilots self-

evaluate prior to each flight whether they have any medical conditions

that would inhibit their ability to operate the aircraft in a safe

manner. The FAA would rely on the pilot's knowledge and judgment as to

their medical fitness for conducting each flight. The FAA strongly

encourages the public to comment on whether there should be specific

medical standards upon which the pilot should base their self-

evaluation. If so, what should those standards be? In

[[Page 41170]]

particular, the FAA would like comments in response to the following

questions:

(1) Should the rule specifically prohibit holders of pilot

certificates who do not also hold medical certificates from flying if

they know or should know that they have certain conditions? For

example, should the rule exclude persons who believe that they have no

known medical deficiencies even if they know, or have any reason to

know, that they have:

(a) A visual problem, e.g., vision un-correctable to at least 20/

30?

(b) An equilibrium problem?

(c) Alcoholism to the extent that the intake of alcohol has caused

damage to their physical health, personal or social functioning, or is

required to enable them to perform normal functions?

(d) A drug dependence?

(e) A personality disorder, neurosis, or a mental condition that

makes them unable to safely operate a vehicle or machinery?

(f) Epilepsy or a disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory

medical explanation of the cause?

(g) A convulsive disorder, disturbance of consciousness, or

neurologic condition that makes them unable to safely operate a vehicle

or machinery?

(h) A myocardial infarction (heart attack), angina pectoris, or a

coronary heart disease?

(i) Diabetes?

(j) An organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or

limitation that makes them unable to safely operate a vehicle or

machinery?

(k) Any other serious medical problem that makes them unable to

safely operate a vehicle or machinery?

(2) Should the rule state that pilots who have failed a medical

examination by the FAA be prohibited from claiming that they have no

known medical deficiencies?

(3) Should the rule state that pilots who have had their medical

certificate revoked or suspended be prohibited from claiming that they

have no known medical deficiencies?

(4) Should the rule state that pilots who hold or have held a

medical special issuance be prohibited from claiming that they have no

known medical deficiencies?

(5) What, if any, documentation should the FAA require persons

without an airman medical certificate to execute in order to identify

that they have evaluated their medical fitness to fly and that, to the

best of their knowledge and belief, they are medically qualified to

pilot an aircraft? How often (before each flight, annually)? What kind

of documentation?

(6) How, if at all, should the FAA require pilots without a medical

certificate to disclose to passengers that they have not been medically

certificated by the FAA?

The FAA recognizes that broad scale medical self-evaluation could

create substantial obstacles to the FAA's ability to enforce

Sec. 61.53. Therefore, the FAA also requests comments on the following

issues:

(7) How would the FAA enforce and monitor compliance with

Sec. 61.53(b)?

(8) Should pilots who do not hold medical certificates be obligated

to provide the FAA with their medical history/records upon request,

either as part of a specific investigation or randomly as part of a

compliance program?

(9) Should the FAA be able to require pilots who do not hold

medical certificates to undergo medical testing when any uncertainty

exists as to whether or not they have any medical problems?

Under this proposal, pilots with an airplane, rotorcraft, or a

glider rating and who elect to only exercise recreational pilot

privileges would be eligible to conduct ``recreational pilot''

operations without having to hold or obtain a medical certificate.

Therefore, a person's pilot certificate may represent apparent

authority to conduct those operations even when that person may not be

medically qualified under part 67 of this chapter. Under the current

rule, these operations would require the pilots to hold and have in

their possession a current medical certificate. Because of the possible

enforcement problems associated with determining an individual's actual

authority to operate, the FAA is also seeking comments on the

following:

(10) Should pilots who have known medical deficiencies be required

to surrender their airman certificates?

(11) If pilots are allowed to keep their airmen certificates when

they have a known medical deficiency, should the FAA require the airmen

certificates to be stamped ``NOT VALID UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY A CURRENT

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE?'' The FAA is strongly encouraging the public to

express their concerns regarding these questions as well as any other

issues pertinent to this proposal.

The FAA requests comments on whether the limited operational scope

of a recreational pilot certificate, under which all the above pilots

would be required to operate, makes requiring these pilots to submit to

medical examinations an unnecessarily burdensome process. Section

61.101 lists the limitations of a recreational pilot certificate, which

includes, among other things, the following limitations:

A recreational pilot may not operate an aircraft--with more than

one passenger on board the aircraft; that is certificated for more than

4 occupants; with more than one powerplant; with a powerplant of more

than 180 horsepower; with a retractable landing gear; that is

classified as a multiengine airplane, powered-lift, glider, airship, or

balloon; carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire nor

may the pilot operate for compensation or hire; in furtherance of a

business; between sunset and sunrise; in airspace in which

communication with air traffic control is required; at an altitude of

more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher; when

the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles; without

visual reference to the surface; on a flight outside the United States;

to demonstrate that aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer; used in

a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by a charitable

organization; and that is towing any object.

The FAA is also proposing to allow recreational pilots who have

received the cross-country training required for private pilot

certification to fly beyond the 50 nautical mile limit which is now

required by the current Sec. 61.101.

The FAA acknowledges that there are a number of difficult issues

surrounding this concept, and that the data and analysis currently

developed are limited at best. The FAA is therefore requesting comments

that provide supporting data and analysis on the likely effects of

changing the FAA's long-standing medical certification policy for

pilots. In particular, the FAA would like comments on the potential

impact on safety.

On November 17, 1994, the National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) provided the FAA with general aviation accident data involving

medical incapacitation since 1982 for balloon and glider pilots. There

have been a total of 7 accidents involving balloon and glider pilots

since 1982 where a finding was made on medical incapacitation as a

cause or factor involved in the accident. Out of those 7 accidents, 4

pilots had valid medical certificates, 2 pilots had held a medical

certificate but the certificates were expired, and only 1 pilot did not

hold a medical certificate. There were 5 fatalities, 1 serious injury,

and 1 minor injury. The NTSB's data and brief summaries showed the

following information:

(1) Date: June 18, 1983, Category of Aircraft: Balloon, Crew

Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0,

[[Page 41171]]

Medical Certification: Yes, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 58,

Brief summary: After takeoff, the pilot collapsed to the floor of the

gondola and had difficulty breathing. The balloon hit the porch of a

house and was substantially damaged. The pilot died from acute

myocardial infarction.

(2) Date: February 20, 1986, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew

Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injuries: 0, Medical

Certification: Yes, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 65, Brief

summary: Medical examination of the pilot revealed that the pilot had a

history of heart condition and at the time of the accident the pilot

experienced an heart arrhythmia associated with a myocardial

infarction.

(3) Date: February 24, 1990, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew

Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical

Certification: None, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 53, Brief

summary: Pilot had a history of epileptic seizures. Toxicological

analysis revealed the drug carbamazepine present in the blood and urine

samples at therapeutic levels. The drug was an anticonvulsant which

causes drowsiness.

(4) Date: July 31, 1990, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew

Injuries: 1 minor, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical

Certification: Yes, Miscellaneous statistics: Female, age 56, Brief

summary: Pilot had reported she had injured her right arm during flight

into turbulent conditions. She stated she was unable to control the

pitch of the glider due to her injuries and had to parachute out.

(5) Date: July 19, 1991, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew

Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical

Certification: Medical certificate had lapsed, Miscellaneous

statistics: Male, age 63, Brief summary: An autopsy revealed the pilot

had cardiovascular disease, including coronary atherosclerosis with

thrombosis of bypass graft.

(6) Date: July 31, 1991, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew

Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical

Certification: Unknown, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 25, Brief

summary: Pilot reported a midair collision with another glider. The

NTSB's finding determination was the failure of the pilot to maintain

an adequate visual lookout and the collision induced incapacitation.

(7) Date: September 21, 1991, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew

Injuries: 1 serious, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical

Certification: Medical certificate had lapsed, Miscellaneous

statistics: Male, age 72, Brief summary: Pilot reported that he blacked

out.

In addition, the NTSB supplied the FAA with the following total

general aviation aircraft accident data and statistics involving

medical incapacitation as a cause or factor in their finding during the

years 1982 through 1993:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Injuries

Aircraft Accidents Fatal -----------------------------------------------

Accidents Fatal Serious Minor None

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1982........................ 10 10 8 11 1 0 42

1983........................ 7 7 5 6 1 0 6

1984........................ 15 15 10 21 6 2 21

1985........................ 14 14 9 11 2 4 117

1986........................ 12 12 7 9 1 1 307

1987........................ 14 14 11 56 0 0 112

1988........................ 13 13 7 7 6 3 104

1989........................ 7 7 6 7 0 0 2

1990........................ 7 7 6 8 0 1 0

1991........................ 20 20 14 15 6 5 23

1992........................ 13 13 10 19 4 1 69

1993........................ 6 6 3 3 1 0 209

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totals.................. 132 132 96 170 28 17 1012

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*This data does not differentiate between those pilots who held current, valid medical certificates at the time

of the accident and those who allowed their medical certificates to lapse or never held medical certificates.

Furthermore, this data did not filter out those accidents that were a result of a medical incapacitation

involving an injury sustained during the flight or alcohol or illegal drug incapacitation.

15. Required Pilot Possession of Pilot and Medical Certificates

The FAA proposes to clarify the requirement in Sec. 61.3 that a

pilot, flight instructor, ground instructor, or medical certificate

must be in the person's ``personal possession'' whenever that person

exercises the privileges of the certificate. The FAA's intent is to

have pilots and instructors carry their certificates on or near their

person while exercising the privileges of that certificate.

A legal decision has demonstrated that the current requirement can

be interpreted in more than one manner. For example, ``personal

possession'' was interpreted to permit a pilot to exercise the

privileges of a pilot certificate while the certificate remained behind

in the pilot's residence or automobile. The general purpose of the

regulation, however, is to enable pilots or required flight crewmembers

to present their certificate to an authorized person upon request and

at the time of that request.

The FAA proposes to replace the reference ``personal possession''

with the requirement that a certificate be in the ``person's physical

possession or readily available.'' This way, a pilot certificate would

be available when requested by an authorized person. Additionally, a

person who carries their pilot and medical certificates in their

briefcase or in a purse aboard the aircraft would still be in

compliance with the rule. However, this does not mean that person could

state their pilot and medical certificates are located at their home in

a desk drawer and still be in compliance with the term in the

``person's physical possession or readily available.''

16. Issuance of U.S. Pilot Certificates on the Basis of Foreign Pilot

Licenses

The FAA proposes several changes to Sec. 61.75, regarding issuance

of a U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of a foreign pilot license.

The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.75 to require that when a foreign

pilot certificate is not in the English language, the person must

provide a signed English transcription of the license and its

limitations from the foreign government's aviation agency. An English-

language transcription would help avoid incorrect issuance of a U.S.

pilot

[[Page 41172]]

certificate, letter of authorization, or appropriate ratings through

inaccurate translations. This amendment would also help to ensure that

all requirements of Sec. 61.75 are met and there is no endorsement on

the certificate stating that the pilot has not met all of the standards

of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for that

license. This proposal would require evidence of meeting medical

standards on which foreign certificates are based and an English-

language transcription of the foreign medical certificate.

The FAA also proposes to revise Sec. 61.75 to eliminate the

issuance of commercial pilot certificates when issuing U.S. pilot

certificates on the basis of a foreign pilot license. Under the

proposed amendment, the U.S. would honor or accept a foreign-issued

pilot certificate for the issuance of a U.S. private pilot certificate

only. This would replace the current practice of issuing a private

pilot certificate to the holder of a foreign private pilot license, and

a commercial pilot certificate to the holder of a foreign commercial,

senior commercial, or ATP license. This change would be mainly for

clarification because current policy is to endorse the U.S. commercial

pilot certificate as ``not valid for operations for compensation or

hire,'' which effectively limits the certificate to private pilot

privileges only. The proposed rule would delete language specifically

disallowing the U.S. certificate to be used for agricultural

operations. However, persons who have been issued commercial pilot

certificates on the basis of their foreign pilot certificate prior to

the effective date of this rule would be allowed to continue to hold

that pilot certificate. However, if the person seeks an additional

rating, then the certificate would be reissued at the private pilot

certificate level.

The FAA also proposes to revise Sec. 61.75 to delete language that

bases the pilot privileges on those authorized by the foreign pilot

license. Under the proposal, the holder of a U.S. private pilot

certificate issued under Sec. 61.75 would be permitted to act as a

pilot of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft in accordance with private

pilot privileges authorized by part 61 that are placed on the U.S.

certificate. This will clarify that operating authority is derived from

the U.S. private pilot certificate issued, which contains the

privileges and limitations. Any additional limitations and restrictions

(e.g., weight of aircraft) that are on the foreign pilot license are

incorporated by reference onto the U.S. private pilot certificate. The

proposed rule language would further clarify that personal possession

of the foreign pilot license is required in order to exercise the

privileges of the U.S. private pilot certificate. Finally, the proposal

would clarify that the pilot would not be allowed to exercise the

privileges on the U.S. certificate if the foreign pilot license was

revoked or suspended.

Under current Sec. 61.75, FAA practice permits persons who cannot

read, speak, write, and understand the English language to be issued a

pilot certificate with certain limitations restricting operations in

airspace requiring the use of the English language. In accordance with

this proposal, the practice would be discontinued and persons issued

certificates under this section would be required to be able to read,

speak, write, and understand the English language. However, those

persons who cannot read, speak, write, and understand the English

language and who have been issued pilot certificates with limitations

that restrict operations in airspace requiring the use of the English

language prior to the effective date of this rule would be allowed to

continue to hold that certificate. If the person seeks an additional

rating or higher level pilot certificate, then the certificate would

not be issued unless the person is able to read, speak, write, and

understand the English language.

The regulation currently requires evidence that the applicant meet

the medical standards for the foreign pilot license on which the

application for a U.S. certificate is based. This evidence may include

a U.S. medical certificate. The proposed rule would state specifically

that the applicant must hold a current medical certificate, either

issued under part 67, or issued by the state that issued the foreign

pilot license.

Special Purpose Pilot Authorization

The FAA proposes to revise the rules regarding the issuance of

special purpose pilot certificates for the operation of U.S.-registered

civil airplanes leased by a person who is not a U.S. citizen. The FAA

proposes to replace the issuance of special purpose pilot certificates

with the issuance of special purpose pilot authorizations that will be

issued by a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). Persons who have

been issued special purpose pilot certificates, prior to effective date

of this rule, would continue to be allowed to exercise the privileges

of that certificate until the certificate expires. However, once the

special purpose pilot certificate expires, the pilot would be required

to surrender the certificate for a special purpose pilot authorization

and comply with the provisions contained in proposed Sec. 61.77.

Standardization of the ``Age 60 Limitation'' for Airmen Employed by

Foreign Air Carriers in Scheduled International Air Services or Non-

Scheduled International Air Transport Operations

The FAA proposes to clarify Secs. 61.3 and 61.77 relating to the

``Age 60 Limitation'' with part 121. This proposal will cover all U.S.

and foreign pilots, who are 60 years of age or older, and who are

employed by a foreign air carrier that operates U.S.-registered civil

aircraft for compensation or hire in scheduled international air

services and non-scheduled international air transport operations. This

proposal will make the rules of part 61 consistent with the standards

contained in part 121.

17. Logging Flight Time

The FAA proposes revisions in the logging of pilot flight time. The

proposals are contained in Sec. 61.1a, Clarification of terms, and in

Sec. 61.51, Pilot logbooks.

The FAA proposes these revisions largely in response to public

concern regarding various aspects of the rules on logging flight time.

Many of the participants at the public hearings encouraged the FAA to

clarify the existing regulations. For example, some recommended that

the term ``solo flight time'' be deleted and that student pilots be

permitted to log ``solo'' time as PIC time.

Proposed Sec. 61.1a would clarify that pilot time is any time a

person operates as a required pilot, receives training from an

authorized instructor, or gives training in an aircraft, flight

simulator, or flight training device. Flight time would be clarified as

pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power

for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest at

the point of landing. The FAA proposes that in the case of a nonpowered

glider, flight time would begin when the nonpowered glider commences

being towed for the purpose of flight and would end when the nonpowered

glider comes to rest at the destination.

In Sec. 61.1a, the FAA proposes to describe cross-country time for

three separate circumstances: For persons who hold a private,

commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate; for persons

applying for a private or commercial pilot certificate or instrument

rating; and for military pilots. For holders of private, commercial, or

airline transport pilot

[[Page 41173]]

certificates, the criteria for cross-country flight would include

landing at a point other than the point of departure and use of dead

reckoning, pilotage, or navigation aids to navigate. No minimum

distance would be specified. However, for persons applying for a

private or commercial pilot certificate or for an instrument rating,

the point of landing would be required to be more than 50 nautical

miles from the point of departure. For a military pilot who holds or is

qualified for a private or commercial pilot certificate under

Sec. 61.73, cross-country time would be flight over a distance of more

than 50 nautical miles. However, the FAA recognizes that military

flight operations may require pilots to navigate and fly considerable

distances without landing at a point other than the point of departure.

Therefore, proposed Sec. 61.1a would not require that a landing occur

at any point other than the departure point.

Proposed Sec. 61.51 would eliminate reference to ``solo'' time as a

type of pilot experience or training equivalent to PIC time. The

proposal would permit student pilot certificate holders to log PIC time

when they: are the sole occupant of the aircraft; have a supervised PIC

flight endorsement; and are undergoing a course of training for a pilot

certificate or rating or are logging PIC time toward a certificate or

rating. The description of solo flight time in current Sec. 61.51 would

be eliminated under the proposal.

The proposal would specify that, except when a flight instructor

gives flight training, only one person at a time may log PIC flight

time. This provision is intended to eliminate current confusion,

particularly regarding the current provision that permits any pilot to

log PIC time when acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one

pilot is required under the regulations under which the flight is

conducted.

Instead, the proposal would state that the holder of a pilot

certificate may log PIC time only when that pilot: (1) Has the final

authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the

flight; (2) holds the appropriate ratings; (3) has been designated PIC

before the flight; and (4) the PIC time occurred in actual flight

conditions and in an aircraft.

Although the current regulation also specifies that a flight

instructor may log as PIC time all flight time during which the person

acts as a flight instructor, the proposed rule would provide more

detail regarding the conditions under which this occurs. For example,

the flight instructor would have to be authorized to conduct the

training; hold at least a third-class medical certificate; and occupy a

pilot station with functioning flight controls. To log PIC time the

certificated pilot receiving flight training would have to be qualified

to conduct the flight in accordance with the FAR; manipulate the

controls of the aircraft; and be undergoing a course of training for

the issuance of a certificate or rating or obtaining recency of

experience requirements. In addition, the aircraft would have to have

dual functioning flight controls and engine controls that could be

reached from either pilot station.

The proposal would not significantly alter the current requirements

regarding logging of instrument time. However, the proposal would state

that if a safety pilot is required, the name and pilot certificate

number of the safety pilot must be recorded and the location and kind

of each completed instrument approach. The current rule does not

require the safety pilot's certificate number.

The proposal would specify the information that should be recorded

regarding flight training toward a certificate, rating, or flight

review. This would include a description of the training given, the

length of the lesson, the instructor's signature, certificate number,

and certificate expiration date.

The proposal would modify the current provision of Sec. 61.51 that

applies to the requirement for presentation of the person's logbook.

The proposal would list the other records a person must present, in

addition to the logbook, upon the request of an authorized official.

The other documents include the pilot certificate, medical certificate,

or any other record required under part 61. Both the current rule and

proposed rule refer to officials representing the Administrator and the

NTSB. However, the current rule also refers to a State or local law

enforcement officer; the proposal would expand this to include any law

enforcement officer.

18. Recency of Experience Requirements

The FAA proposes to modify a number of the recency of experience

requirements in Sec. 61.57.

The current requirement for three takeoffs and three landings

within the preceding 90 days would be modified to allow night takeoffs

and landings to also count for daytime currency. However, the takeoffs

and landings would have to be to a complete stop, whether accomplished

during day or night or in an airplane with tailwheel landing gear or

tricycle landing gear. In retaining the current requirements, night

operations will involve knowledge, skill, and ability that are

sufficient for currency for daytime operations. However, safety will be

better served if the regulation requires full-stop landings, at least

for the purpose of meeting the requirements of proposed Sec. 61.57,

rather than encouraging ``touch-and-go'' operations. A landing is not

completed until the airplane is stopped and off the runway. As an

example, crosswinds may cause a wing to lift suddenly, or mistakes can

be made during a hasty effort to ``clean up'' the airplane (i.e.,

retract flaps, turn off carburetor heat, etc.).

Additional language is proposed that would require each takeoff and

landing to involve a flight in the traffic pattern at the recommended

traffic pattern altitude for the airport. This language is intended for

pilots of helicopters and powered-lift aircraft, which could takeoff

and land in virtually one spot. However, the intent of the rule is that

pilots perform a complete takeoff and landing operation, including

operating in the airport traffic pattern.

19. Instrument Currency

In addition, the FAA proposes to revise the requirements for

instrument currency. Currently, Sec. 61.57 sets the minimum

requirements for recent instrument flight experience. For aircraft

other than gliders, a pilot must have logged at least 6 hours of

instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of

which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, within the

past 6 calendar months. The pilot must also have conducted at least six

instrument approaches in that time. A pilot who does not meet the

requirement of 6 hours and six approaches during the prescribed time or

6 months thereafter must pass an instrument proficiency test.

The revision in instrument currency requirements proposed here for

aircraft other than gliders is based on a petition for rulemaking from

Newton W. Miller, who advocates changing the requirements to emphasize

instrument approaches and reduce the number of hours flown under

simulated or actual instrument conditions to meet recency of experience

requirements. The petition, summarized in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1984 (49 FR 42943; Docket No. 24247), advocates decreasing

the required flight hours to 2 or 3 hours (including at least 1 hour in

the category of aircraft involved) and increasing the number of

required approaches to 10 or 12. The petitioner argues that the 6 hours

of simulated instrument flight may be flown largely in straight and

level flight, which probably is relatively unchallenging to most

instrument-rated pilots and does

[[Page 41174]]

not significantly contribute to maintaining instrument proficiency. The

petitioner also states that 6 hours is an economic burden to many

pilots and encourages pilots ``to fly while not legally current.'' The

petitioner states that aircraft control combined with the complex

demands of following approach plates and communicating with ATC are

much more germane to IFR proficiency. Therefore, the petitioner states,

the number of required approaches should be increased. The petitioner

states that 10 or 12 approaches could be conducted in 2 hours of flight

time.

One comment was submitted in response to that petition. In that

comment, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) stated that the present

regulation does not ensure proficiency, because a pilot may take an

instrument proficiency test and not fly in instrument conditions for up

to 6 months but still be legally current.

The petitioner raises an important issue in focusing on the quality

of the time spent in instrument flight, especially simulated instrument

flight, although the FAA disagrees that the current regulation

encourages pilots to disregard the FAR and fly illegally. Therefore,

the FAA proposes to revise the instrument recency of experience

requirements. Under the proposal, to act as PIC under IFR, or in

weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, within

the preceding 6 calendar months for aircraft other than gliders, a

pilot would be required to have performed and logged: (1) At least six

precision instrument approaches; (2) at least six nonprecision

instrument approaches, (3) holding procedures; (4) intercepting and

tracking VOR radials and NDB bearings; (5) recovery from unusual flight

attitudes; and (6) flight by reference to instruments. However, these

maneuvers and procedures would not be required to be performed in

actual or simulated instrument flight. No minimum number of hours of

simulated or actual instrument flight time would be specified.

Proposed Sec. 61.1a would define an instrument approach as an

approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted to an established

minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH), or if

necessary, to a higher altitude selected for safety reasons by ATC.

Part 97 prescribes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) for

instrument letdown to airports in the United States.

These proposed requirements could be met either in actual flight

and in the category of aircraft for which instrument privileges are

sought, or in an approved flight simulator or flight training device

representative of the category of aircraft for which instrument

privileges are sought.

Instrument recency of experience in gliders would change mainly in

format under the proposal. Pilots would be required to perform and log

at least 3 hours of instrument time in actual flight, of which at least

one-half must have been in a glider or single-engine airplane if the

pilot does not carry passengers. If the pilot does carry passengers,

the pilot must have performed and logged at least 3 hours of instrument

time in a glider.

The FAA also proposes to clarify the requirements for an instrument

proficiency test. Currently, the instrument proficiency test would be

required for a person who has not met the instrument recency

requirements within the prescribed time or within 6 calendar months

after that time. The FAA proposes to clarify this issue by amending

Sec. 61.57 to require that the test include a representative number of

tasks required for original certification of an instrument rating.

The FAA issued an NPRM on April 11, 1994 (59 FR 17162) to waive the

recency of experience requirements of Sec. 61.57 for PICs of parts 121

and 135 operators. Specifically, that NPRM proposed relief to PICs of

parts 121 and 135 operators from having to comply with the recency of

experience requirements, (i.e., general, night, and instrument) of

Sec. 61.57. Parts 121 and 135 have recency of experience requirements

that are at least equivalent to the recency of experience requirements

of Sec. 61.57, so duplication of these requirements are unnecessary.

The final rule is scheduled for issuance in 1994.

The proposals in this NPRM would extend the exception requirements

for the general and night recency experience requirements of Sec. 61.57

to PICs of part 125 operators, but not the instrument recency

experience requirements. The FAA believes the training programs and

structured operational controls placed on PICs in part 125 operations

are adequate in ensuring that there will not be a degradation in

safety. The FAA believes that the redundant recency of experience

requirements in part 125, in addition to the structured training

programs and operational controls placed on PICs of part 125 operators

more than adequately cover any safety concerns provided by exempting

these PICs from the recency of experience requirements of Sec. 61.57.

20. English Language Ability Requirements

The FAA proposes to standardize English language fluency

requirements for all certificates and ratings and to eliminate

exceptions in certain rules that permit pilots to be certificated

without meeting English language fluency requirements, under certain

restrictions.

The proposal to eliminate exceptions to the English language

requirements would affect all pilot and flight instructor applicants.

This proposal would be addressed in each of the eligibility paragraphs

of each pilot certificate level and would require all applicants to be

able to read, speak, and understand the English language. Under the

proposal, the reference to operating limitations would be deleted, and

all applicants would be required to meet the language requirements. A

similar provision in current Sec. 61.75, which provides for placement

of limitations on a pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign

pilot license, also would be deleted. As with the pilot certificates

and ratings, the applicant for a U.S. pilot certificate, on the basis

of a foreign pilot license, would have to be able to read, speak,

write, and understand the English language.

The FAA has grown increasingly concerned that pilots' inability to

sufficiently read, speak, and understand English during radio

communication and in dealing with air traffic control poses a serious

safety hazard. The exceptions referred to have not effectively kept

such pilots out of airspace in which command of the English language is

essential, and for safety reasons, the FAA believes all pilots who

operate in the National Airspace System (NAS) should meet the English

language requirements. Current holders who cannot read, speak, write,

and understand the English language, but have been issued pilot

certificates with limitations that restrict operations in airspace

requiring the use of the English language prior to effective date of

this rule would be allowed to continue to hold that certificate. If the

person seeks an additional rating or higher level pilot certificate,

then the certificate will not be issued unless the person is able to

read, speak, write, and understand the English language.

The proposal would eliminate, as superfluous, current language in

Sec. 61.151 that requires applicants for the ATP certificate to speak

English without accent or speech impediment that would interfere with

two-way radio conversation. The FAA believes that the requirement to

speak English means

[[Page 41175]]

speak well enough to participate clearly and safely in radio

communications.

21. Flight Training Given by a Flight Instructor Not Certificated by

the FAA

Existing Sec. 61.41, ``Flight instruction received from flight

instructors not certificated by the FAA,'' permits flight training

received by a flight instructor who is not certificated by the FAA to

be credited toward the requirements for a U.S. pilot certificate or

rating. However, the instructor is required to either be a: (1) Member

of an Armed Force of either the United States or a foreign contracting

State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in a program

for training military pilots; or (2) flight instructor authorized to

give that flight training by the licensing authority of a foreign

contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and

the flight training is given outside the United States.

Section 61.41 contradicts existing Sec. 61.3, which states that

flight training must be given by the holder of a flight instructor

certificate issued by the Administrator. The exceptions to this

requirement do not include flight instructors who are not certificated

by the FAA. The absence of an exception for these flight instructors

has caused confusion in relation to Sec. 61.41. Currently, the FAA

permits flight training received by a flight instructor who meets the

requirements of Sec. 61.41 to be credited toward the requirements found

in part 61.

The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 61.3 to ensure that, under certain

circumstances, the recipient of flight training from a flight

instructor who is not certificated by the FAA, may credit that flight

training toward the requirements in part 61. Such a privilege is

granted in the existing regulation but is subject to misinterpretation.

22. Second-in-Command (SIC) Training and Recent Experience

The FAA proposes to clarify the familiarization review requirements

under Sec. 61.55 for pilots serving as SIC of an aircraft that requires

more than one pilot. Under the proposal, a person serving as SIC would

be required to have completed, within the previous 12 calendar months,

a familiarization review on specific subjects for the type of aircraft

in which privileges are requested. As with other issues in this

proposal, the FAA seeks greater structure and standardization.

The proposed section would maintain current provisions providing

exceptions to the training requirements. For example, the training

requirements do not and would not apply to pilots qualified as PIC or

SIC under parts 121, 125, or 135. In addition, pilots designated as SIC

for the purpose of receiving flight training required under Sec. 61.55,

where no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft do not and

would not have to meet the training requirements. Exceptions to the

training requirements would also continue to be made for pilots holding

a commercial pilot or ATP certificate in the case of ferry flights,

test flights, or evaluation flights, provided no persons or cargo

unnecessary for conducting the flight are carried aboard the aircraft.

23. Knowledge Tests

As discussed in the section on Clarification of Terms, the FAA

proposes to use the term ``knowledge test'' to replace the term

``written test.'' Knowledge tests will include tests administered by

computer, which already are acceptable to the FAA; this term will

update the FAR terminology to conform with the educational community.

In addition, the FAA proposes to require that applicants for

knowledge tests obtain a logbook endorsement from an instructor in

order to be eligible to take a knowledge test. This will end the

current practice in which applicants request an FAA inspector from a

FSDO to review and discuss their home study materials as evidence that

they have completed a home study course. This practice constitutes an

unnecessary workload for the FAA and is a role more properly filled by

ground or flight instructors. Home study would still be acceptable; the

only change would be that an instructor's endorsement would be

required, but a review by the FAA would not.

The FAA proposes to continue requiring an endorsement to take the

knowledge test to dissuade applicants from taking the test with

inadequate preparation, again, to avoid undue administrative burden.

Many applicants taking and retaking the knowledge tests might delay

grading and response time, which would be unfair to applicants who

completed courses and prepared for the tests.

24. Standardized Syllabus

The Notice of Hearings (54 FR 22732; May 25, 1989) invited public

comment on whether parts 61 and 141 should be consolidated into one

regulation and whether all training should be performed from a

standardized curriculum. Under the current system, pilot and flight

instructor training is conducted to meet the criteria and requirements

of aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency, as set out in part 61

and the PTS. There is no requirement in part 61 for an applicant to

complete an FAA-approved ground and flight training syllabus before

obtaining a pilot or instructor certificate or rating.

Part 141 provides a specific method for meeting the part 61

requirements through training programs conducted at approved schools

that offer standardized curricula and are monitored by the FAA to

ensure quality training. Part 61 requires specific course structure and

organization, detailed recordkeeping, increased standardization of

training, and increased supervision of training. Testing standards are

the same for pilots trained at non-approved schools or by independent

instructors.

Although many of the comments received in response to the Notice of

Hearings and at the public hearings supported consolidating parts 61

and 141, many commenters also wanted to maintain the current system of

approving FAA pilot schools under part 141 and having schools and

independent instructors operate under part 61 only.

However, during the public hearings, many participants agreed that

performing training under a standard curriculum or syllabus may be

beneficial. Nevertheless, they disagreed on whether the written

training program should be prepared by the FAA or developed by industry

and approved by the FAA. Many recommended that outlines be generated by

the school and approved by the FAA. Some commenters noted that

peculiarities of geographic area may not be included in a syllabus

generated by the FAA. Participants suggested that a general syllabus

could be published in an advisory circular format as guidance.

Based on the public comments and its own study of the issue, the

FAA believes that part 61 and part 141 should not be combined or

consolidated. However, the FAA is proposing that all training for

pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates and

ratings should be performed according to a written syllabus. The intent

of this proposal is to encourage all training to be conducted according

to a more organized and standardized format. This approach to training

would give students and trainees the benefit of more structured

training programs, an advantage that currently exists in training

conducted under part 141 (or parts 121 and 135). The FAA believes that

many independent instructors and pilot schools conducting training

under part 61 already understand this and use

[[Page 41176]]

written syllabi although no regulatory requirement exists. However, the

FAA would like to see this approach become the industry norm.

The FAA proposes to establish a new Sec. 61.9 to require an

instructor who provides training for an airman certificate or rating

issued under part 61 to use a written syllabus that includes a summary

of total training time; planned training time for each lesson; a

detailed description of training to be covered in each lesson; and the

aeronautical knowledge areas and approved areas of operation that apply

to the airman certificate or rating. Because this requirement would

apply to training conducted under part 61, and schools that conduct

training under part 61 are not directly subject to FAA approval or

certification, the instructor would bear responsibility for ensuring

that all necessary areas of aeronautical knowledge and operation were

covered in the training program. The proposal also would require the

instructor to give a copy of the syllabus to the student at the outset

of the training and ensure that the student completed the syllabus

before the practical test.

The FAA does not, at this time, propose to require instructors to

submit the syllabi for FAA approval. This would constitute a major

administrative workload for the FAA and for instructors. However, the

instructor would be required to maintain a copy of the syllabus, make

it available for FAA inspection upon request, and provide each student

with a record of the training accomplished. This proposal would revise

Sec. 61.189 to require each flight instructor to retain for 3 years a

copy of the syllabus for each person trained by that instructor.

Proposed Sec. 61.219 would include the same requirement for ground

instructors.

The FAA does not intend for each instructor to produce a personal

syllabus for each course of training, although there is nothing to

preclude such an effort should an instructor prefer to do that. Syllabi

could be based on training courses published by manufacturers and

training organizations.

The FAA believes that the use of training syllabi would provide

more continuity in training conducted under part 61. This is

particularly important for students who change instructors in the midst

of a training program.

25. Training and Endorsements

The FAA proposes several initiatives to enhance pilot training and

preparation. These efforts include additional training and instructor

endorsements that cover human factors training, windshear avoidance

training, and special aircraft certification training for pilots. In

addition, current endorsement requirements for complex and high

performance airplanes would be clarified under the proposal.

26. Endorsement for Complex and High Performance Airplanes

The FAA proposes to amend current Sec. 61.31, which deals with high

performance and complex airplanes. Under this proposed revision,

complex and high performance airplane endorsements would be discussed

in separate paragraphs of Sec. 61.31. One endorsement would be required

for a pilot flying an airplane with retractable landing gear, flaps,

and a controllable propeller (commonly referred to as a ``complex

airplane''). A separate endorsement would be required to operate a high

performance airplane, which would be redefined from ``more than 200

hp'' to ``200 hp or more.'' This proposed requirement for separate

endorsements, one for complex airplanes and one for high performance

airplanes, could be achieved simultaneously in a complex airplane of

200 horsepower (hp) or more.

Before giving the endorsements prescribed by Sec. 61.31, the

instructor would be required to provide both ground and flight training

in the airplane to ensure the pilot is proficient on the operation and

systems of the airplane.

In addition, Sec. 61.31 currently requires endorsements only for

holders of private or commercial pilot certificates. The FAA proposes

to extend this requirement to holders of ATP certificates because it is

possible to earn the certificate in a low horsepower, non-complex,

single-engine airplane.

27. Aircraft Type Specific Training

In December 1991, the FAA issued a Special Certification Review

Report on the Piper Malibu and Mirage airplanes. This review was a

result of seven in-flight structural breakups involving Piper Malibu

and Mirage airplanes. Although the review process did not discover any

major design deficiencies, the special certification team that reviewed

the airplane did make approximately 60 recommendations concerning

design improvements and operational clarifications on the airplane.

The Special Certification Review team consisted of FAA engineers,

inspectors, and pilots who were tasked with reviewing the certification

process, service history, and operation of the Malibu and Mirage

airplanes. The report issued on the airplanes was reviewed by the FAA's

Small Airplane Directorate and an action plan was developed. The plan

included some possible airworthiness directives and recommendations for

improved pilot training, policy revision, and rulemaking. Both the

review team and Small Airplane Directorate concluded there is a need to

improve the education and training of pilots in these high performance,

complex airplanes. The FAA stated in the report that both the aviation

community and the FAA have the responsibility for ensuring that pilots

have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to operate these kinds of

airplanes in normal, abnormal, and emergency situation.

In response to this Special Certification Review of the Piper

Malibu and Mirage, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 61.31 by adding a

new paragraph that will require aircraft type specific training and a

flight instructor endorsement for any aircraft that the Administrator

has determined is necessary to ensure that pilots are adequately

trained in normal, abnormal, and emergency situations on these kinds of

airplanes. The FAA believes that pilots need this additional training

to possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to operate

these kinds of high performance, complex airplanes. The FAA proposes to

require additional training and a flight instructor endorsement for a

person to serve as a PIC of an aircraft that the Administrator has

determined requires type specific training.

28. Human Factors

The FAA proposes to introduce human factor training requirements

for all levels of pilot certification. The training requirements would

include aeronautical decision making (ADM) and judgment training for

pilots at all certificate levels. Although research on aeronautical

human factors has been underway for many years, these concepts

represent relatively recent advances in training methodology. The

traditional approach to training is to focus on technical aspects of

aerodynamics, aircraft characteristics and systems, airspace,

meteorology, and regulations. The presumption is that the flight

crewmembers will integrate these subject areas to respond properly to

the situations faced in actual flight conditions.

The intent of adding the benefits of human factors training

research to the pilot training regimen is to assist pilots in

integrating available information and arriving at correct decisions.

Based on this research, it is now feasible to systematically and

explicitly study

[[Page 41177]]

ADM and judgment, rather than relying on pilots to adopt these

practices intuitively or relying completely on their experience. Much

of this research is based on accident investigations that indicate that

decision making processes contributed to or caused the accident. The

FAA believes that pilots in the future will benefit from accident

analysis and training methodologies designed to overcome lapses in

judgment.

29. Aeronautical Decision Making and Judgment Training

The training manual ``Aeronautical Decision Making for Student and

Private Pilots,'' prepared by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation for the

FAA (Report No. DOT/FAA/PM-86/41), divides pilot activities into three

basic categories. First are procedural activities, including management

of the powerplant, fuel, navigation, communications, and other aspects

of aircraft configuration. The second category is perceptual and motor

activities, including aircraft control, and geographic orientation. The

third category is decision making activities. The training manual

covers self assessments of skill, knowledge, physical and psychological

capabilities, hazard assessment, navigation planning, and flight

priority assessment. The FAA has determined that aeronautical decision

making is necessary, because flying involves a continuous stream of

decisions about the crew, aircraft, environment, and operation. These

decisions include pre-flight, ``go/no-go'' decisions, and in-flight

decisions, which are designed to neutralize (by eliminating or

reducing) risks in flight.

Of the three pilot activity categories, decision making accounted

for 51.6 percent of fatal accidents in an analysis of data for a 5-year

period, according to the AOPA manual. The objective of the manual, and

aeronautical decision making (ADM) and judgment training in general, is

to teach pilots to avoid situations that require luck or skill beyond

their capabilities, and to reduce the level of judgment-related

accidents.

With a solid base of conventional skills and knowledge,

aeronautical decision making and judgment training can provide a

structured approach to pilot reaction to event changes in flight. This

training can be especially valuable to pilots with less experience to

help confront the unexpected. These ``event changes,'' in addition to

preflight decisions, may include mechanical problems, new instructions

from Air Traffic Control, or unexpected weather. These changes call for

decisions in which poor judgment may entail a high degree of risk. A

common example of the target of such training is the non-instrument-

rated private pilot who either fails to obtain a complete weather

briefing or unexpectedly encounters poor weather but nevertheless is

inclined to continue a flight into instrument meteorological

conditions.

Aeronautical decision making and judgment training follow a three-

pronged approach:

Provide an analytical method for making decisions and

evaluating risks.

Address pilots' hazardous attitudes and substitute

attitudes that promote good judgment.

Address the need to overcome high stress, which reduces

judgment and decision-making abilities.

Under the proposal, the requirement for ADM and judgment training

would be placed under the knowledge requirements for all pilot

certificate levels and all instrument ratings in proposed parts 61 and

141. The aviation community is directed to existing FAA-sponsored

guidance material as well as additional educational materials available

from other sources. Furthermore, the FAA plans to issue an advisory

circular that will address the essential elements of ADM and judgment

training that pertain to the various certificate levels.

30. Windshear Avoidance

The FAA believes that understanding windshear would enhance safety

for general aviation pilots and, therefore, proposes to require ground

training on windshear for all pilot certificate levels and the

instrument rating. This proposal is based on the increased information

available on windshear and industry expert opinion obtained through the

FAA Pilot and Flight Instructor JTA, in which windshear is listed as a

critical area of pilot knowledge.

The proposal would add a knowledge requirement on windshear

avoidance to the current requirements on recognition of critical

weather situations and the proposed aeronautical knowledge areas for an

instrument rating, a recreational, private, commercial, and an ATP

certificate. In the commercial pilot requirements of Sec. 61.125,

``airplanes,'' the windshear knowledge requirement would be added as

part of a new meteorology knowledge requirement because this paragraph,

unlike the paragraphs relating to rotorcraft, gliders, airships, and

balloons, currently does not mention meteorology or weather as a

knowledge requirement. The aviation industry's awareness of the

importance of the windshear phenomenon and its understanding of the

problem has increased markedly in recent years. A National Research

Council (NRC) study stated that windshear is ``an infrequent but highly

significant hazard to aircraft landing or taking off,'' 1 and

recommended a series of measures to reduce windshear accidents.

\1\ United States. National Research Council. Low-Altitude Wind

Shear and Its Hazard to Aviation. Washington: National Academy

Press, 1983. Page 1.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of the study and the Council's recommendations, the FAA

sponsored the development of a comprehensive Windshear Training Aid.

Advisory Circular 00-54, ``Pilot Windshear Guide,'' constitutes one

section of the two-volume Windshear Training Aid and was issued on

November 25, 1988. In addition, the FAA has implemented and expanded

ground and flight training requirements for flightcrew members employed

in parts 121 and 135 air carrier and commercial operations. In air

carrier operations, the FAA pursues a ``systems concept'' that includes

an improved low-altitude windshear weather forecasting technique,

ground-based windshear detection equipment, airborne windshear

detection equipment, and improved pilot training.

The NRC report stressed, however, that all classes of pilots should

understand the windshear phenomenon, including general aviation pilots.

The report noted that general aviation pilots usually are not as well

trained as air transport pilots and that they rarely have access to

advanced training simulators. According to the report, ``the most

practical and immediate solution appears to be an extensive education

program to warn general aviation pilots of the hazards associated with

low-altitude windshear and to teach both avoidance and escape

procedures.'' 2 In the report, NRC stated that the risk posed by

windshear can be reduced ``very soon by an education campaign directed

at all classes of pilots.'' 3 The lack of awareness regarding

windshear--including the origins, nature, and potential hazards of

downbursts and wind variability--was found to be most acute within the

general aviation community because of the diverse pilot skill and

training levels. The report also stressed the need for standardized

terminology for pilot-controller transmissions on windshear conditions

and reports.

\2\ Ibid., p. 1.

\3\ Ibid., p. iii.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NTSB statistics indicate that general aviation has an average of 16

windshear-related accidents per year based on figures for 1979 through

1988. Those 16 accidents, including 1.3 fatal accidents, have resulted

in an average of 3.8 fatalities and 4.4 serious injuries related

[[Page 41178]]

to windshear per year. However, the NRC report noted that low-altitude

windshear may have been a factor in additional accidents that were

described as weather-caused or weather-related. According to the

report, ``The rarity and lack of a reliable statistical data base on

windshear-related accidents, shear encounters, or even the frequency of

occurrence of potentially hazardous wind shears does not diminish the

importance or severity of the safety problem. The potentially

catastrophic consequences of an encounter during takeoff or approach

and landing require that wind shear always be taken into account as a

primary safety consideration when weather conditions are such that

strong wind shears may be present. The widespread lack of appreciation

among pilots, traffic controllers, and aircraft operations personnel of

the seriousness of the possible safety hazards has exacerbated the

problem.'' 4

\4\ Ibid's, p. 130.

Currently, FAA written examination questions on windshear are

primarily limited to weather theory questions focusing on the

definition of windshear and the effect of windshears on aircraft during

final approach. This proposal would broaden windshear training to

include at least the following elements: Windshear weather,

particularly microbursts, and clues that indicate its presence; effects

of windshear on aircraft; windshear recognition from the cockpit and

avoidance techniques; necessary precautions and standard operating

techniques when windshear is suspected; and recovery techniques to be

used in inadvertent windshear encounters.

Several sources of information are available for this proposed

ground training requirement, and if the proposal is adopted, the FAA

plans to issue a new advisory circular addressing avoidance for general

aviation. In Advisory Circular 00-54, the FAA stresses the need to

learn to recognize signs of windshear and avoid encountering the

condition. Other reference material, such as AC 61-23B, ``Pilot's

Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge,'' and AC 00-6A, ``Aviation

Weather,'' have basic discussions of windshear.

Although part 61 currently does not specifically require windshear

avoidance training for the ATP certificate, part 121 contains windshear

requirements for air carrier flight crewmembers. Beginning January 1,

1991, part 121 air carrier flight crewmembers were required to receive

ground training in recognizing and avoiding severe weather and escaping

severe weather, in case of inadvertent encounters, including low-

altitude windshear (Secs. 121.404 and 121.419). Flight training in

windshear avoidance maneuvers and procedures also is required by

Secs. 121.424 and 121.427. Pilots working in part 135 (air taxi and

commercial operators) operations are required to receive sufficient

ground training in meteorology to ensure a practical knowledge of

weather phenomena, including the principals of frontal systems, icing,

fog, thunderstorms, windshear, and, if appropriate, high altitude

weather situations (Sec. 135.345). As previously mentioned, the

prescribed knowledge in Sec. 61.153 regarding weather for ATP

candidates does not specifically state windshear avoidance training.

Therefore, the FAA, to avoid any misunderstanding, proposes to add a

knowledge requirement on windshear avoidance to Sec. 61.153.

31. Aeronautical Experience Requirements

The FAA proposes to revise the minimum flight training hours of

aeronautical experience and minimum solo flight hours of aeronautical

experience that are required for the recreational and private pilot

certificates and ratings under parts 61 and 141. Additional

flexibility, under certain conditions, is proposed for pilot schools

operating under part 141.

Under parts 61 and 141, the FAA proposes to revise the amounts of

required dual and solo hours for the recreational and private pilot

certificates and ratings. In part, this is based on information from

the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, a part 141 pilot school. In

addition, the FAA believes that solo flight time is often not used

constructively in training programs. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to

permit the instructor and student to tailor the dual and solo training

time requirements toward the individual student's needs. For example, a

student who is seeking a private pilot certificate, and who has

previous aviation experience and takes readily to the training may be

able to complete training for a private pilot certificate with only the

minimum 40 hours of flight time that includes at least 20 hours of

flight training time from an authorized flight instructor and 20 hours

of supervised PIC flight time. However, a student pilot who does not

have previous aviation experience or who trains infrequently may need

more time than the minimum 40 hours of flight time, 20 hours of flight

training time from an authorized flight instructor, and 5 hours of

supervised PIC flight time. The student pilot and flight instructor may

need to tailor the training to require 35 hours of flight training time

from an authorized flight instructor and 5 hours of supervised PIC

flight time.

Under proposed Sec. 61.113, ``Airship rating: Aeronautical

experience,'' the requirement for 5 hours of PIC flight training while

under the supervision of an authorized flight instructor is not

intended to mean the instructor must be present in the aircraft. For

example, if the airship required a SIC, the SIC could be a qualified

pilot who was not necessarily an instructor, as long as the flight

instructor provided flight supervision.

Finally, the proposed aeronautical experience requirements would

place greater emphasis on experience in category and class of aircraft.

32. Instrument Rating

The FAA proposes several significant changes in the requirements to

obtain an instrument rating. The FAA proposes to eliminate the

requirement for a minimum of 125 hours of total flight time experience

before a person may apply for an instrument rating. The FAA believes

that this requirement should be eliminated to encourage more pilots to

seek an instrument rating. This parallels current ICAO standards, which

do not prescribe minimum pilot flight experience as a prerequisite for

an instrument rating. The FAA believes that safety benefits were

realized when the requirement was reduced to 125 hours and that

allowing pilots to become eligible for the instrument rating as soon as

possible will produce further benefits. The proposal would also delete

the requirement for the minimum of 50 hours of cross-country flight

time to more closely align the instrument rating eligibility

requirements with ICAO standards.

In 1985, the FAA issued Amendment No. 61-75 (50 FR 19290: May 7,

1985) which reduced the total flight experience requirements for the

issuance of an instrument rating. At that time, the FAA stated that the

amendment was in response to recognized current training technology and

that the FAA supported the concept of training to prescribed standards

for an instrument rating. The FAA stated in the amendment that it

recognized many pilots delay starting instrument training until they

have accumulated 150 to 160 hours of flight time. The FAA estimated

that it would take a pilot 3 to 4 years to accumulate 150 to 160 hours

of flight time. During the development of Amendment No. 61-75, the FAA

[[Page 41179]]

conducted a training experiment to examine the relationship of pilot

experience, as defined by total flight time, to the acquisition of

instrument skills. The results of that experiment concluded that the:

(1) Amount of prior flight time had no effect on the acquisitions and

demonstration of instrument flight skills within the pre-instrument

flight experience ranges examined in connection with the experiment;

and (2) reduction of the former required total flight experience, prior

to the issuance of Amendment No. 61-75, for an instrument rating to a

lower total flight experience encouraged pilots to obtain their

instrument ratings. In light of the ever increasing complex NAS that

pilots are required to operate in, it should encourage pilots to start

their instrument training as soon as possible.

In Amendment No. 61-75, the FAA cited a 1981 study conducted by

Walton Graham, ``A Study of General Aviation Safety,'' part II, Volume

1, prepared for Trans Urban East Organization, New York, by Questek,

Inc., November 1981. In that study, the FAA noted the following

accident rates:

Fatal/Serious Accident Rates, IFR Rated Pilots Compared to Non-IFR Rated

Pilots

Flight Under IFR Conditions By:

Non-IFR Rated Plt.............. 1 Acc./1,449 hours

IFR Rated Plt.................. 1 Acc./12,186 hours

Flight Under VFR Conditions By:

Non-IFR Rated Plt.............. 1 Acc./61,900 hours

IFR Rated Plt.................. 1 Acc./94,819 hours

The FAA stated the statistics in that study supported the need for

Amendment No. 61-75. As in the case of Amendment No. 61-75, the FAA

believes this proposal will encourage non instrument-rated pilots to

seek instrument training at an earlier stage in their aviation

training, and will result in:

(1) A higher level of safety and competency in coping with

sophisticated aircraft equipment, navigation aids, and communication

systems;

(2) The restructuring of flying courses under parts 61 and 141 to

provide supervised instrument flight rule experience during the

training curriculum; and

(3) The encouragement of continued training to meet both the

currency and higher certification levels.

The proposal would continue to require at least 40 hours of

simulated or actual instrument flight training, which may include 20

hours in an approved flight simulator or flight training device and 15

hours of instrument flight training in the aircraft for an instrument

rating.

Proposed Sec. 61.65 also would state that a person who completes an

instrument rating practical test for a multiengine airplane, while

holding a single-engine airplane class rating would be considered to

have met the single-engine airplane instrument rating requirements. The

currently required flight instruction and skill would be addressed

under proposed areas of operation. A significant proposed change for

airplanes is that proposed Sec. 61.65 would add a requirement that the

250-nautical mile (nm) IFR cross-country flight contain one route

greater than 100 nm between airports, and that this cross-country

flight include an instrument approach at each airport. However, the

proposal would delete the language in the current rule that requires

the cross-country flight to be in ``simulated or actual IFR

conditions.'' The FAA intends that the flight be conducted under

instrument flight rules but not necessarily under actual or simulated

instrument conditions. An instrument approach would be required at each

airport, and approaches using VOR, NDB, and ILS radio navigation aids

would be required during the flight.

Similarly, for the instrument rating-helicopter, the cross-country

requirement would be 100 nm under IFR but not necessarily simulated or

actual instrument conditions. The proposal would add the requirement

that one of the routes be greater than 50 nm between airports, and that

an instrument approach be conducted at each airport on the route.

The requirements of the proposed areas of operation would be very

similar to the current requirements, although in certain cases they

would be more general. For example, the requirement that the applicant

be endorsed as having been trained and found competent in instrument

approaches to published minimums using VOR, ADF, and ILS systems would

be replaced with a requirement that the applicant receive and log

training in instrument approach procedures. This would permit the PTS

to specify, as required, other types of approach procedures appropriate

to the IFR environment.

The instrument rating areas of operation are listed separately by

aircraft. Although this causes some redundancy, it is similar to the

organization of the current regulation, and is intended to assist users

by eliminating or minimizing cross-referencing. The proposed rule

contains areas of operation for airplane category (the practical test

would vary between single-engine and multiengine), helicopter class,

airship class, and powered-lift category.

Applicants for the instrument rating would be required to present

endorsements for the knowledge and practical tests as well as pass the

required knowledge test. The required areas of aeronautical knowledge

would remain similar to the currently required areas of ground

instruction, including applicable FAR, the ``Airman's Information

Manual,'' the air traffic control system, IFR navigation and

approaches, IFR en route and approach procedure charts, aeronautical

decision making and judgment, weather, and windshear avoidance.

33. Recreational Pilot Certificate

The FAA proposes to revise the eligibility requirements for the

recreational pilot certificate as follows: (1) must be able to read,

speak, write, and understand the English language, with no provisions

or limitations to the contrary; and (2) would not be required to hold a

medical certificate. In addition, an applicant would have to affix a

signed and dated statement to the application certifying they do not

have any known medical limitations that prevent the person from

operating the aircraft for the aircraft category and class rating

sought.

The FAA is proposing to allow holders of recreational pilot

certificates and holders of a higher pilot certificate who elect to

only exercise the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate to

operate without holding medical certificates. This action is responsive

to the EAA petition and the interests of the general aviation

community, as discussed earlier. The FAA is requesting comments on this

proposal and the accompanying proposed changes to Sec. 61.53. For more

details see the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 61.53.

The FAA proposes to revise the aeronautical experience requirements

for a recreational pilot certificate by requiring an applicant to

accomplish and log at least 30 hours of flight time that includes at

least 15 hours of flight training time from an authorized flight

instructor and 3 hours of supervised PIC flight time. The purpose for

this proposal is to respond to comments heard during the public

hearings to allow the student and the flight instructor to tailor the

required training to individual student needs.

For example, a student who has previous aviation experience and

takes readily to the training may be able to complete training for a

recreational pilot certificate with only the minimum 30

[[Page 41180]]

hours of flight time that includes at least 15 hours of flight training

time from an authorized flight instructor and 15 hours of supervised

PIC flight time. However, a student pilot who does not have previous

aviation experience or who trains infrequently may need more time than

the minimum 30 hours of flight time, 15 hours of flight training time

from an authorized flight instructor, and 3 hours of supervised PIC

flight time. The student pilot and flight instructor may need to tailor

the training to require 27 hours of flight training time from an

authorized flight instructor and 3 hours of supervised PIC flight time.

The FAA proposes to revise the privileges and limitation

requirement for a recreational pilot certificate by allowing a

recreational pilot to act as PIC of an aircraft on a flight that

exceeds 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, without receiving

training for a private pilot certificate. However, the pilot would be

required to receive the proposed training and an endorsement to conduct

a flight that exceeds 50 nautical miles.

These proposed revisions will improve interest in the recreational

pilot certificate and will encourage more people to seek pilot

certification.

34. Preflight Planning

The FAA proposes to revise the aeronautical knowledge areas for a

recreational or private pilot certificate to reflect the requirements

for preflight action found in Sec. 91.103.

The current aeronautical knowledge requirements for the private

pilot certificate applicant with an airplane or rotorcraft category

rating include VFR navigation, using pilotage, dead reckoning, and

radio aids. These requirements have been interpreted to include the

preflight action items in Sec. 91.103. The proposal to add the items

found in Sec. 91.103 to the proposed aeronautical knowledge areas would

avoid any misinterpretation of the applicant's aeronautical knowledge

requirements.

35. Limitations on Cross-Country Endorsements

The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 61.93 to clarify the cross-country

flight requirements for students and recreational pilots seeking a

private pilot certificate. Under the proposal, the limitations placed

in the student's logbook for a supervised PIC cross-country flight

would have to be met at the time of the student's departure.

The existing rule, which requires that each supervised PIC cross-

country flight be subject to conditions listed in the student's logbook

is ambiguous. Incidents have occurred where a student has departed on a

cross-country flight without adhering to limitations in the student's

logbook. Also, the dispatching flight instructor may not be the

student's principal instructor and may not be familiar with the

student's personal limitations. The proposal would permit the principal

instructor to list limitations considered necessary for the safety of

flight (e.g., weather minimums, maximum crosswind components, time

frames for departure and completion) that would have to be met before a

student could depart on a cross-country flight.

This proposal also would require a revision of the language in

Sec. 61.195 on flight instructor authorizations to be compatible with

language proposed in Sec. 61.93.

36. Night Flight Training

The FAA proposes to clarify and modify night flight training

requirements for private pilot and commercial pilot applicants. The FAA

proposes to require night operations as an area of operation for

airplanes, powered-lift, and rotorcraft ratings.

An exception would be permitted for pilots whose training and

certification occurs in geographic latitudes where there is no

nighttime for extended periods. In the United States, this only applies

to persons who receive their training in Alaska. The proposed rule

would permit a 1-year exception for these pilots. Within 1 year after

receiving their certificate with a night flying limitation, pilots

would be required to obtain the minimum 3 hours of night flight

training and have the restriction removed.

Another exception would be proposed for persons with medical

restrictions against night flight, because of vision problems. Persons

in this group would be permitted to carry the night flight limitation

on their certificates indefinitely.

This proposal would require more pilots to gain exposure to night

flight. Experience shows that, even if pilots have no intention of

flying at night, situations arise in which they might encounter delays

and be tempted to complete a trip after dark. It is critical for pilots

to understand how different night operations are from daytime

operations and to understand their personal limitations.

However, a person who has been issued a pilot certificate without

meeting the night flying requirements of this proposal, prior to

effective date of this rule, would be allowed to continue to hold that

pilot certificate with the night flying limitation. If the person seeks

an additional rating or higher pilot certificate level, the person

would be required to comply with the night flying requirements that are

appropriate to the pilot certificate level.

37. Private Pilot Limitations

The FAA proposes several significant changes to the current

Sec. 61.118 [proposed Sec. 61.113], ``Private pilot privileges and

limitations: Pilot in command.''

Under the current regulation, a private pilot may serve the public

in humanitarian-type missions, if the pilot is not compensated. The FAA

has granted exemptions to public service organizations to permit

reasonable reimbursement to volunteer private pilots for expenses

incurred for serving the public in such flights. The FAA proposes to

permit private pilots to be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses

(i.e., fuel, oil, and airport expenditures) incurred while serving the

public in certain public humanitarian missions (i.e., Civil Air Patrol,

Sheriff Department, etc.).

Under the proposal, search and location activity would be permitted

when the activity is under the direction and control of local, state,

and federal law enforcement agencies. The FAA believes that skilled

private pilots are a valuable resource to enforcement agencies

conducting search and location missions and that this resource should

be available under controlled conditions. The proposal is intended to

permit private pilots to conduct searches in conjunction with search

and location operations. The FAA considers a search and location

operation as a flight or series of flights authorized by and under the

direction and control of local, state, or federal law enforcement

agencies for the purpose of searching for lost or injured persons and

communicating the location of these persons to the appropriate

authorities. The proposal is intended to include a pilot and the

minimum essential number of persons required to perform observation,

map reading, and communication duties. For example, under the proposal,

a private pilot could act as PIC of an aircraft carrying fire fighters

searching for a fire. This proposed paragraph would not permit a

private pilot to transport fire fighters from one location to another.

In addition, the proposal is not intended to involve private pilots in

the transportation of emergency response personnel and victims.

The FAA also proposes to clarify how a private pilot may share

expenses with passengers. Under the current rules, a

[[Page 41181]]

private pilot may only share the operating expenses of a flight with

passengers. The FAA proposes to specify that these operating expenses

be restricted to fuel, oil, and airport parking expenditures only, and

that these expenses be shared equally between the pilot and the

passengers.

The FAA also proposes to clarify the provisions permitting private

pilots to conduct flight operations for charitable events. Under the

proposal, the regulation would specify that, if a private pilot

functioned as a PIC of an aircraft for a passenger-carrying airlift

sponsored by a charitable organization, the sponsor of the airlift

would have to provide a signed letter with information on the event,

and a photocopy of the pilot's pilot certificate, medical certificate,

and logbook entries showing compliance with recency of experience

requirements and the 200-hour minimum total experience requirement.

Other aspects of the provisions for private pilots' operations in

charitable events would remain largely the same. Aircraft maintenance

would be required to be in accordance with subpart E of part 91,

although the specific reference in current rule to a required 100-hour

inspection and compliance with Sec. 91.409 would be deleted.

Nevertheless, those requirements are applicable and would continue

under the proposal. In addition, reference to specific U.S. Department

of Treasury documents would be replaced with a more general requirement

that the charitable organization be identified as such by the

Department of the Treasury.

Under this proposal, specific reference to private pilots engaged

in aircraft sales would be deleted. The existing rule states that a

private pilot, who is an aircraft salesman and who has logged at least

200 hours of flight time, is permitted to demonstrate an aircraft in

flight to a prospective buyer. This proposed revision does not

eliminate this private pilot privilege, however, because it is covered

in the proposed Sec. 61.113(b).

Finally, a new provision would be added to clarify that a private

pilot who meets the requirements of Sec. 61.69 may act as PIC of an

aircraft towing a glider and log that flight time. This is consistent

with current and proposed Sec. 61.69.

38. Glider Towing

Section 61.69, ``Glider towing: Experience and instruction

requirements,'' currently provides two means for a person to qualify as

a PIC of an aircraft towing a glider. The proposed rule would retain

the first alternative in Sec. 61.69, which requires the person to have

made and logged at least three flights as sole manipulator of the

controls of an aircraft towing a glider while accompanied by a

qualified pilot. Under this proposal, the second alternative in

Sec. 61.69, would be removed. This alternative allows for the person to

have made at least three flights as sole manipulator of the controls of

an aircraft simulating glider towing flight procedures and at least

three flights as pilot or observer in a glider being towed by an

aircraft. The FAA believes that safety will be better served if a

person's first experience actually towing a glider occurs while that

person is accompanied by a qualified pilot, rather than flying solo, as

may be the case currently.

39. Eligibility for Commercial Pilot Certificate

The FAA proposes changes to current Sec. 61.123, ``Eligibility

requirements: General'' and Sec. 61.129, ``Airplane rating:

Aeronautical experience.'' Section 61.123 currently requires applicants

for the commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category rating

either to have a private pilot certificate or to have passed the

private pilot written and practical tests. Under this proposal,

Sec. 61.123 would list the private pilot certificate as a prerequisite

for commercial pilot certificate applicants for all aircraft

categories. This would, in effect, require applicants to take the

private and commercial practical tests separately, so that applicants

actually have a private pilot certificate when they apply for the

commercial pilot certificate.

The proposed change is not intended to require that the private

pilot certificate necessarily be in the same category and class of

aircraft for which the applicant seeks a commercial pilot certificate.

The other proposed changes to eligibility requirements for

commercial pilot certificate applicants would affect English language

ability; applicants would be required to read, speak, write, and

understand the English language, and no exceptions would be made. In

addition, a third-class medical certificate, rather than a second-class

medical certificate, would be required. Proposed Sec. 61.23 would

require, as is currently the case, that a person hold at least a

second-class medica

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.