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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-18911

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** August 11, 1995
- **Citation:** 60 FR 41160

## Text

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 str

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-18911. Public record. Not legal advice.