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

SUMMARY: This rule revises the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) that

prescribe the certification, training, and experience requirements for

pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors, and the

certification requirements for pilot schools approved by the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA). This rule updates these requirements to

enhance the ability of pilots to meet the evolving demands of the

National Airspace System (NAS) and operate safely and effectively in

this environment.

DATES: This rule is effective August 4, 1997. Comments must be

submitted on or before June 3, 1997.

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, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267-3844.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

This final rule contains amendments that were not proposed in

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) No. 95-11 which was published in

the Federal Register on August 11, 1995 (60 FR 41160). The amendments

extend the applicability of the ``Age 60 Rule'' (14 CFR 121.383(c) for

operational requirements, and Sec. 61.77 for certification

requirements) to 10-30 seat aircraft, for holders of U.S. pilot

certificates and holders of special purpose pilot authorizations. In

addition, these amendments extend the compliance date for these pilots

to meet these provisions. These amendments are discussed fully in the

preamble of 14 CFR 61.3 and 61.77. Because these issues were set forth

in previous rulemaking actions and interested persons commented on

these issues, these amendments are being adopted without prior notice

and prior public comment. However, the Regulatory Policies and

Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134;

February 26, 1979) provide that, to the maximum extent possible,

operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for

public comment on regulations issued without prior notice.

Accordingly, interested persons are invited to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they

may desire regarding the FAA expanding the applicability of the ``Age

60 Rule'' in 14 CFR part 61 to include 10-30 seat aircraft. Comments

may be delivered or mailed, in triplicate, to the FAA, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 25910, 800

Independence Avenue SW., Room 915G, Washington, DC 20591. Comments

submitted to this rule must be marked: Docket No. 25910. Comments also

may be sent electronically to the following Internet address: 9-nprm-

[email protected]. Comments may be examined in Room 915G between 8:30

a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, except Federal holidays.

All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will

be filed in the public docket. The docket is available for public

inspection before and after the comment closing date. This amendment

may be changed in light of the comments received on this final rule.

Commenters who want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of comments

submitted on this rule must submit a preaddressed, stamped postcard

with those comments on which the following statement is made:

``Comments to Docket No. 25910.'' The postcard will be date-stamped by

the FAA and will be returned to the commenter.

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

The FAA finds that notice and public comment on the above

amendments are unnecessary. As stated in the preamble to Notice No. 95-

11, the changes to the age 60 requirements in part 61 were intended to

be similar to the age 60 requirement in 14 CFR part 121. Since the

covered operations in part 121 have been changed, the operations in

part 61 that are subject to an age limitation have been similarly

changed. These are, in essence, technical amendments. The FAA does not

believe that these amendments will cause undue hardship.

For these reasons, notice and public comment procedures are

impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. As a

result, the FAA, for good cause, finds that ``notice and public

procedures thereon'' are unnecessary within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Individuals will have an

opportunity to submit comments concerning these amendments by June 3,

1997.

Availability of Final Rule

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

to the FAA, Office of Rulemaking, Attention: ARM-1, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

Requests should be identified by the amendment number or docket number.

Using a modem and suitable communications software, an electronic

copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations

section of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone:

703-321-3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: 202-512-1661) or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 202-267-5948).

Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov,

or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/

su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking documents.

Outline of Final Rule

I. General Aviation Policy Statement

II. Background

III. Proposed Rule and General Description of Comments

IV. Discussion of Major Issues

A. The exercise of recreational pilot certificate privileges

1. Medical requirements for recreational pilots and holders of

higher pilot certificates exercising the privileges of a

recreational pilot certificate

2. Elimination of the 50-nautical mile limitation for

recreational pilots

B. Recent flight experience

1. Takeoffs and landings

2. Recent instrument experience

C. Lighter-than-air flight instructor certificate

D. New instrument ratings

1. Single-engine and multiengine ratings

2. Airship

[[Page 16221]]

3. Powered-lift

E. Requirements for instrument ratings

F. New aircraft category and class ratings

1. Powered-lift

2. Glider class ratings

G. English language requirements

H. Areas of operation

V. Section by Section Analysis

I. General Aviation Policy Statement

On September 8, 1993, the FAA Administrator 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. The Administrator

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 NAS.

5. Affordability--To promote economic and efficient general

aviation operations, expand participation, and stimulate industry

growth.

Accordingly, this rulemaking project is designed to meet these

general aviation goals and to provide economic relief from unnecessary,

burdensome regulations. Throughout this process, the FAA has been in a

partnership with the general aviation community in developing and

revising the rules in 14 CFR parts 61, 141, and 143 to ensure aviation

safety, and yet delete unnecessary, burdensome rules. The FAA is

committed to developing rules that are fair and reasonable, and yet

promote a high level of pilot training and qualification.

II. Background

This rule is based on the proposals contained in Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) No. 95-11, ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground

Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules,'' which was published

in the Federal Register (60 FR 41160) on August 11, 1995.

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

review of parts 61, 141, and 143. These regulations pertain to

certification and training requirements for pilots, flight instructors,

and ground instructors, and the certification and operation of pilot

schools that are approved by the FAA. This regulatory review was

initiated in response to advancements in aviation technology, training,

and changes in the NAS that have occurred since the last major

revisions to these regulations in the early 1970's. The FAA has

received numerous petitions for exemption and letters from the public

suggesting changes to the current regulations. At the time the NPRM was

issued, there had 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

also have demonstrated the need for the regulatory review. A major goal

of the review has been 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 an

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

this review, the FAA received comments from pilot schools and college

and university aviation departments operating under parts 61 and 141.

Three major areas were identified during the review: issues of

immediate concern recommended by the NTSB and public comments; the

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

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

regulatory review was divided into three phases corresponding to these

needs. The final rule, based on Phase 1 of this review (56 FR 11308;

March 15, 1991), contained the following:

1. A requirement to obtain training and a flight instructor

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

2. A 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 mean sea level (MSL);

3. A 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. A provision to permit pilots to complete a phase of an FAA-

sponsored pilot proficiency program (WINGS program) in lieu of a

biennial flight review (BFR);

5. A requirement for pilot applicants to receive ground training on

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

6. A requirement for pilot applicants to receive flight training on

flight at slow airspeeds with realistic distractions and the

recognition of, and recovery from, stalls;

7. A requirement for flight instructor applicants to receive actual

spin training;

8. A requirement for flight instructor applicants to perform a spin

demonstration on retests when the reason for the previous failure was

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

spin entry, spins, or spin recovery techniques;

9. A provision that FAA inspectors and designated pilot examiners

may accept an instructor endorsement in lieu of a spin demonstration on

a practical test for the flight instructor certificate;

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

flight instructor be available by telephone, radio, or other electronic

means only during the time that instruction is given for an approved

course of training;

11. A provision in part 141 to permit the initial designation of

assistant chief flight instructors who possess half the experience

requirements of chief flight instructors;

12. A provision to eliminate the 100-hour currency requirements in

part 141 for obtaining initial designation as a chief flight

instructor; and

13. A provision to eliminate the 25-mile distance restriction for

establishing satellite bases in part 141.

This final rule reflects the results of Phase 2 of the regulatory

review. Phase 2 addressed issues affecting parts 1, 61, 141, and 143.

Prior to publishing this rule, the FAA issued a notice of meeting (54

FR 22732; May 25, 1989) that announced four public meetings and

outlined the general topics to be considered for this final rule. The

four public meetings were held before the drafting of this rule and

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).

[[Page 16222]]

Phase 2 also involved 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 information

for use in training programs and practical test standards. 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 and whose 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. A copy of the JTA is available for examination in

Docket No. 25627.

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 earlier public meetings and the information received

during the JTA. The invitees were selected as a result of their

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

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. This rule incorporates many of the

concepts developed through the public meetings, the JTA, and the public

comments received in Docket Nos. 25627 and 25910. Additional amendments

to ensure that Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, conforms with the

provisions of this final rule will be the subject of a rulemaking

action in the immediate future.

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:

1. Eliminating the requirement that a recreational pilot hold at

least a third-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

recreational 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-evaluate that they are physically fit to fly.

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

Over 1,000 comments were received, and the majority of commenters

voiced overwhelming support for the petition. 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 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 response to

EAA's petition 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 final rule, the FAA is adopting one very significant change

requested by the EAA: elimination of the 50-nautical-mile limitation

for those recreational pilots who obtain additional training. For

reasons discussed in section IV,A of this preamble, the FAA has decided

not to adopt those other elements of the EAA proposal that were

proposed in Notice No. 95-11.

Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking

at Training Centers; Final Rule

On July 2, 1996, the FAA issued Amendment Nos. 1-45, 61-100, 91-

251, 121-259, 125-27, 135-63, 141-7, 142, and SFAR 58-2, ``Aircraft

Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking at

Training Centers; Final Rule'' (61 FR 34508-34568), subsequently

referred to as Amendment No. 61-100. Those provisions of Amendment No.

61-100 that revised part 61 and Amendment No. 141-7 that revised part

141 have been included in this rule. In addition, some of the

provisions of Amendment Nos. 61-100 and 141-7 have been modified to

conform with changes adopted in this final rule and to correct several

mistakes and omissions that were contained in Amendment Nos. 61-100 and

141-7.

Amendment No. 61-100 redesignated Secs. 61.2, 61.3, and 61.5 as

Secs. 61.3, 61.5, and 61.6, respectively. In addition, that amendment

added a new section, Sec. 61.2, Definition of terms. In this final

rule, Sec. 61.1 includes both the applicability provisions and the

definitions of terms currently found in Sec. 61.1 and Sec. 61.2.

Accordingly, Secs. 61.2, 61.3, 61.5, and the preamble discussion of

those sections in this final rule reflect the structure of part 61

prior to the adoption of Amendment No. 61-100 and the organization of

part 61 proposed in Notice No. 95-11.

III. The Proposed Rule and General Description of Comments

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed a major revision to the

training and certification requirements applicable to pilots, flight

instructors, ground instructors, and those pilot schools approved by

the FAA. The intent of the proposal was to make the regulations more

compatible with the current operating environment and the evolving

demands of the NAS. The proposals included measures to update training,

certification, and recency of experience requirements, and a number of

the proposals were intended to promote and encourage increased pilot

training activities.

The major proposals in the NPRM included: (1) Clarification and

standardization of terminology; (2) establishment of a new powered-lift

category for pilot certification; (3) separation of class ratings for

nonpowered and powered gliders; (4) a new flight instructor certificate

in the lighter-than-air category; (5) creation of separate instrument

ratings for single-engine and multiengine airplanes, airships, and

powered-lifts; (6) revisions

[[Page 16223]]

to the recency of experience requirements, particularly related to

recent takeoffs and landings, and instrument currency; (7) revisions to

the recreational pilot certification and authorization requirements,

including the elimination of the 50-mile limit on flights; (8) human

factors training requirements for all certificates and ratings; (9)

replacement of flight proficiency requirements for training and

certification with more general approved areas of operation; (10)

revision of the minimum training times for the aeronautical experience

requirements to permit training to a standard; (11) placement of ground

instructor requirements in part 61 rather than in part 143; (12)

requirement for ground instructor certificates to be based on aircraft

category; (13) establishment of a practical test for ground instructor

applicants; (14) revision of the certification and test courses in part

141 to accommodate all aircraft categories and new technology; (15)

establishment of a check instructor position for student and instructor

checks and tests at pilot schools operated under part 141; (16)

deletion of exceptions that permit pilots to be certificated without

meeting English language fluency requirements; (17) revision of medical

certificate requirements to permit applicants for all certificates and

ratings to hold a third-class medical certificate rather than the

medical certificate required to exercise the privileges of the

certificate; and (18) elimination of the requirement for recreational

pilots to hold any medical certificate.

In response to Notice No. 95-11, the FAA has received over 5,400

comments from the public. The majority of those responding were pilots.

Commenters also included associations representing air carriers,

general aviation, and universities, including the following

organizations: Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA), Aero Sports

Connection (ASC), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Air Transport

Association of America (ATA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

(AOPA), American Diabetes Association (ADA), Auxiliary-powered

Sailplane Association (ASA), Balloon Federation of America (BFA), Civil

Air Patrol (CAP), Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA), Deaf

Counseling Advocacy and Referral Agency (DCARA), Department of

Veterans/Veterans Benefits Administration (VA), Experimental Aircraft

Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA),

Helicopter Association International (HAI), International Deaf Pilots

Association (IDPA), National Air Transportation Association (NATA),

National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), National Business

Aircraft Association, Inc. (NBAA), National Fraternal Society of the

Deaf (NFSD), Paralyzed Veterans of America (PV), Seaplane Pilots

Association (SPA), the Soaring Society of America (SSA), and United

States Ultralight Association, Inc. (USUA). Comments also were received

from public officials, including the Governor of Nebraska and the Mayor

of Omaha.

Most respondents address specific issues rather than the NPRM

overall. However, of the approximately 5,400 comments on the NPRM,

about 130 express general support for the proposed rulemaking, and more

than 220 express general opposition to the NPRM. Many of the

commenters, particularly those who support the proposals to eliminate

the medical certification requirement for recreational pilots as well

as elimination of the 50-mile flight limitation on recreational pilots,

urge immediate completion of the recreational pilot provisions of the

rulemaking. Others state that the proposal would promote the growth of

aviation.

However, some commenters who express general opposition to Notice

No. 95-11 state that it is too voluminous and complex. One commenter

states that while he originally supported Notice No. 95-11 based on the

proposed liberalization of requirements related to recreational pilot

certification, a subsequent detailed reading of what he termed

``numerous new restrictions'' in the rest of Notice No. 95-11 changed

his mind. Other comments in opposition to Notice No. 95-11 state that

the proposal would create burdensome and onerous new regulations and

restrict the growth or threaten the continuation of certain aviation

activities. One commenter criticizes the proposal for ``granting the

FAA Administrator more power.'' Some commenters state that no safety

data has been presented in support of the new requirements. One of the

most controversial areas, for example, was the proposal to create a

flight instructor certificate for the lighter-than-air category.

About 40 commenters express mixed reaction, including proposing

their own variations on some of the FAA-proposed amendments. One

hundred and fourteen commenters suggest technical, grammatical, and

typographical corrections, which the FAA has considered in revising the

proposed rule language. Some commenters state that the structure of the

rule language is difficult to follow because of the numbering system

and length of some of the sections. The FAA also considered this issue

in drafting the final rule. Several commenters also object to the

length of the proposal, stating that it is difficult to properly digest

and respond to the large volume of material.

AOPA comments that Notice No. 95-11 is extremely complex and

unmanageable from a public comment perspective. From a review of the

comments submitted to the docket, AOPA concludes that the general

aviation community has not been made fully aware of the significant

impact of the proposals, and the association does not believe that it

is possible for the FAA to adequately respond to all of the public's

comments without reissuing another NPRM on part 61. According to AOPA,

the public's misconceptions are the result of the incomplete nature of

the NPRM's preamble. AOPA states that many of the changes were not

addressed in the preamble or were labeled as editorial and format

changes. The association contends that some of the editorial changes

will have the greatest impact on pilots. AOPA also states that attempts

to codify existing policy have often created significant restrictions

not currently found in the regulations and, in some instances, do not

reflect current FAA policy. AOPA believes that a more efficient

approach would be to address issues in smaller, more manageable

sections that would afford the public a better opportunity to provide

complete and meaningful comments. According to AOPA, the proposal

imposes burdensome new requirements on general aviation in excess of

any benefits it might provide. The association recommends that the FAA

identify which changes received widespread public support and separate

them for expeditious publication as a final rule.

EAA states that Notice No. 95-11 contains many additional rules

that increase the complexity and cost of learning to fly and

maintaining currency. EAA is particularly concerned that the proposal

will burden flight instructors. The association also comments that the

rules appear to be changed in an effort to make enforcement easier.

In its comment, GAMA strongly supports the FAA's efforts to review

parts 61 and 141. GAMA states that many of the proposals will maintain

or increase the margin of safety while benefiting students and the

training industry as a whole. The association recommends that, because

Notice No. 95-11 is extremely complex, the FAA expedite a final rule

incorporating the less complex and controversial issues,

[[Page 16224]]

such as the elimination of the third-class medical certificate

requirement for recreational pilots and the pilot training requirements

for operating newly certificated aircraft. GAMA feels that the more

complex or controversial issues should be addressed in a subsequent

final rulemaking.

NBAA believes that this proposal is a comprehensive measure to

modernize pilot, flight instructor, ground instructor, and pilot school

certification rules. The association adds that this proposal is a valid

effort to promote general aviation, improve safety, and reduce costs to

aviation consumers, and provide for large improvements in aviation

training.

NATA comments that, although it generally is pleased with Notice

No. 95-11, it strongly supports maintaining the distinct difference

between parts 61 and 141 schools. The association disagrees with the

elimination of some of these differences and believes the economic

viability of part 141 schools is dependent on maintaining this

distinction.

SSA states that the proposed changes answer many past comments and,

for the most part, benefit safety. However, SSA feels that certain

sections of Notice No. 95-11 do not comply with the FAA's goal of

reducing regulatory burdens, nor do they demonstrate the FAA's faith

that the soaring community will voluntarily improve its safety record.

According to SSA, some of the proposals will have a detrimental effect

on the cost of learning to fly sailplanes, without enhancing safety.

HAI states that its comments are based on a compilation of member

comments and consultations with other general aviation associations.

HAI chose not to comment on part 1, in the belief that the FAA will

reference changes to the affected rule and make appropriate changes to

definitions in part 1.

The public comments received on specific proposals and the FAA's

response to these comments are addressed in sections IV and V. Each

discussion includes a summary of the issue, a summary of the public

comments, the FAA response, and disposition of the issue for purposes

of the final rule. All comments were reviewed and considered during FAA

deliberations regarding the rule and are available for public

examination in Docket No. 25910.

IV. Discussion of Major Issues

A. The Exercise of Recreational Pilot Certificate Privileges

1. Medical Requirements for Recreational Pilots and Holders of Higher

Pilot Certificates Exercising the Privileges of a Recreational Pilot

Certificate

Summary of proposal/issue: In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to

allow the following persons to operate aircraft without a medical

certificate: pilots who hold recreational pilot certificates, student

pilots operating within the limitations of a recreational pilot

certificate, and those higher-rated pilots (private, commercial, and

airline transport pilot) who elect to exercise only recreational pilot

privileges. In lieu of the requirement to hold a medical certificate,

each pilot would be allowed to evaluate his or her own medical

condition and determine if he or she is fit to fly. This proposed

approach of relying on the judgment of an individual pilot regarding

his or her fitness represented a departure from past FAA policy for

powered aircraft. The FAA has required that pilots, except for glider

and balloon pilots, hold medical certificates to ensure the safety of

pilots, passengers, and people and property on the ground.

This proposed change to FAA policy set forth in Notice No. 95-11

was made after consideration of a petition for rulemaking from the

Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and comments received in

response to that petition. The EAA petitioned the FAA to eliminate

medical requirements for pilots exercising the privileges of a

recreational pilot certificate (59 FR 31; January 5, 1994).

General Comments: In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA asked a number of

questions that were designed to elicit comment on whether self-

evaluation should be permitted for the pilots discussed. With respect

to the general concept of self-evaluation, the majority of individual

commenters voice support for eliminating the medical requirement for

recreational pilots and holders of a higher pilot certificate

exercising the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate.

Supporting this proposal are the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

(AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), American Diabetes

Association (ADA), Aero Sports Connection (ASC), General Aviation

Manufacturers Association (GAMA), National Association of Flight

Instructors (NAFI), and Soaring Society of America (SSA).

AOPA states that it supports this departure from previous FAA

policy as being ``beneficial to the economic well-being of general

aviation by providing a potential stimulus for new flight activity and

training'' and ``that removing the requirement for the medical

certificate from the regulations will not have a significant impact on

general aviation safety.''

Individual commenters who favor the proposal state that medical

self-evaluation would eliminate the paperwork and expense of medical

examinations. Commenters argue that overall there is a small number of

aviation accidents related to medical causes. Many of these commenters

cite the accident experience of balloon and glider pilot operations and

note that no medical certification is required for these operations.

The commenters who oppose allowing pilots to exercise the

privileges of a recreational pilot without a medical certificate cite

general safety concerns as the basis for their disapproval.

Specifically, opposing the proposal are the Aerospace Medical

Association (ASMA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Civil Aviation

Medical Association (CAMA), and Helicopter Association International

(HAI).

The medical associations raised various concerns. CAMA indicates

that there are a number of medical problems that cannot be recognized

by an individual who evaluates himself or herself and that are

incompatible with safe flight. CAMA also states that ``[s]ome

individuals can be expected to deny to themselves the seriousness of

their medical problems.'' CAMA believes medically related accidents

inevitably would follow the adoption of this proposal, but they also

acknowledge that medically caused accidents are rare. CAMA also states

its concern that the proposal is not in the long term interests of any

pilot because ``[m]inor problems will be detected on the FAA medical

examination and managed before they become major problems. For example,

early hypertension will be apparent and can be treated promptly.''

ASMA argues that although all pilots exercise a degree of self-

evaluation before every flight, ``the experience of practicing aviation

medical examiners is that private or recreational pilots are most often

the ones who proceed to fly with existing medical problems.''

HAI states its opposition to the proposal arguing that ``[t]he

medical is a necessary evil in aviation'' and that ``if you want to

fly, get a medical.'' Several individual commenters also disagree with

the proposal. One commenter

[[Page 16225]]

expresses disagreement with the proposal indicating that self-

evaluation would allow pilots to lie about their health and endanger

their passengers and people in the areas they overfly. Another

commenter states that he prefers the current third-class medical

certificate requirements and does not see how the FAA will be able to

enforce the proposed self-evaluation without any standard in the rule.

This same commenter states that the balloon and glider accident records

cited by supporters of the proposal are not indicative of the larger

group of general aviation pilots.

Comments to Specific Questions

Safety Data. In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA asked a number of

questions regarding medical self-evaluation. The FAA requested data on

any safety or other public interest concerns that may arise from the

recreational pilot self-evaluation proposal. No such data were

submitted.

Need for Medical Standards. A majority of commenters (including

AOPA and EAA) state that they generally oppose the FAA having specific

medical standards for self-evaluation arguing that a list of

disqualifying conditions would be tantamount to creation of a new kind

of medical certificate. EAA states that ``specific standards are

inappropriate (in fact, contradictory) for self-certification'' and

that they ``are not necessary for safety and therefore would only

institute additional unnecessary regulation.'' AOPA states that ``[it]

is deeply opposed to any regulated restrictions on medical self-

certification for recreational pilots'' arguing that ``[d]oing so, will

only create what is in effect, yet another class of medical

certificate, defeating any benefits that could be derived from this

proposal.''

Some individual commenters who oppose listing disqualifying

conditions for pilot self-evaluation state that they believe the

limitations of the recreational pilot certificate restrict the pilot to

less stressful types of operations that pose minimal risks to other

persons and property. Numerous commenters state that self-evaluation,

with no listing of conditions or constraints, has worked well for

glider and balloon pilots for many years. They argue that the same

self-evaluation process should be adopted for recreational pilots.

A few commenters state that only certain medical conditions should

be disqualifying. ALPA and AsMA support a list of disqualifying medical

conditions. Of these commenters, however, there was no consensus on

what medical conditions should be disqualifying. CAMA states that

further study should be done before adopting the proposal.

Failure of a Medical Exam. Most commenters state that pilots who

have failed a medical examination by the FAA should not necessarily be

prevented from claiming that they have no known medical deficiencies

that would make operating an aircraft unsafe. In addition, a majority

of commenters state that any pilot who has had a medical certificate

revoked or suspended, or who has held a special issuance of a medical

certificate should not automatically be prohibited from claiming that

that pilot has no known medical deficiencies that would make operating

an aircraft unsafe. AOPA does state, however, ``that it has some

concern that the publicity surrounding the self-evaluation proposal may

have built an unintended expectation in the pilot community that anyone

will be able to fly under the proposed rule,'' and that AOPA ``would

encourage any pilot who has been denied a medical certificate or who

holds a special issuance certificate to consult a physician.''

ALPA and AsMA support prohibiting any pilot from claiming that he

or she has no known medical deficiencies if that pilot has failed a

medical examination by the FAA, had a medical certificate revoked or

suspended, or holds or has held a special issuance of a medical

certificate.

Disclosure to Passengers. Most commenters (including AOPA and EAA)

state that the FAA should not require pilots to disclose to their

passengers that they do not hold a medical certificate but that they

have evaluated themselves as medically fit to fly.

Medical History or Records. Most commenters (including AOPA and

EAA) also argue that these pilots should not be obligated to provide

the FAA with their medical history or records upon request as part of a

specific investigation or randomly as part of a compliance program, nor

should they be required to undergo medical testing when any uncertainty

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

Surrender of Pilot Certificates. In addressing the issue of whether

a pilot with known medical deficiencies should be required to surrender

his or her pilot certificate to the FAA, nearly all of the commenters

oppose the mandatory surrender of a pilot certificate, in such a case.

AsMA, however, supports mandatory surrender of pilot certificates. In

addition, the vast majority of the commenters (including AOPA and EAA)

state that the FAA should not require a pilot who has known medical

deficiencies to have his or her pilot certificate stamped with a

statement that the pilot certificate is not valid unless accompanied by

a current medical certificate. ALPA and AsMA support such a stamping

requirement.

FAA Response: The FAA carefully considered all comments pertaining

to the proposal that pilots who hold recreational pilot certificates,

student pilots operating within the limitations of a recreational pilot

certificate, and those higher-rated pilots who elect to exercise only

recreational pilot privileges be permitted to operate an aircraft

without holding a medical certificate. Although the FAA acknowledges

that most of the comments favored eliminating the third-class medical

certificate requirement for such pilots, few of these comments

contained supporting data or analysis. Safety is the FAA's overriding

regulatory concern, and before such a significant change can be

adopted, the FAA must ensure that the level of safety will not be

degraded.

The comments of the medical associations, AsMA and CAMA, raised

serious safety concerns regarding the limitations of self-evaluation.

Furthermore, in reviewing the comments, the FAA noted that there is

controversy regarding alternative methods of implementing and enforcing

self-evaluation in lieu of medical certification. The FAA has

determined that additional scrutiny of the proposal is needed to ensure

that it would raise or maintain the current level of safety; therefore,

the FAA has withdrawn the proposed change from the final rule. The FAA

intends to conduct additional study on this proposal and may issue a

separate rulemaking action in the future.

2. Elimination of the 50-Nautical Mile Limitation for Recreational

Pilots

Summary of proposal/issue: In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to

permit a recreational pilot to operate an aircraft in cross-country

flight more than 50 nautical miles from that pilot's base of training

if the pilot receives ground and flight training and the equivalent to

that required for the exercise of cross-country flight privileges by a

private pilot and receives the appropriate flight instructor

endorsements. This change was intended to increase the utility of the

recreational certificate and to promote general aviation.

Comments: More than 2,000 comments addressed the proposal.

Virtually all commenters (over 99 percent) favor the proposed change.

EAA and NAFI support eliminating the 50-mile flight limit because

it will help attract and retain recreational

[[Page 16226]]

pilots. These commenters also believe the proposal will improve safety.

AOPA also supports the proposal and states that a valuable benefit will

be given to recreational pilots without compromising safety. ASC

supports removing the mileage limitation with an endorsement from a

CFI. Other commenters state that this limitation has been a main factor

in discouraging interest among prospective pilots from earning the

recreational pilot certificate, and that the proposal would revitalize

sport aviation with no adverse impact on safety.

GAMA opposes lifting the 50-mile flight limit. It believes that the

proposal fails to provide an adequate amount of training for the

recreational pilot to competently and safely exercise the privileges of

the certificate. GAMA states that safety is a critical factor, and,

coupled with the reduction in solo flight time, the provision could

prove dangerous. According to GAMA, there should be no increase in

recreational pilot privileges, and instead the FAA should encourage

advanced training. One of the few individual commenters who objects to

the proposal states that the recreational pilot certificate was

intended for people who want to fly airplanes ``for the fun of it,''

but if they want private pilot privileges, they should obtain the

training necessary for the private pilot certificate.

FAA Response: The FAA notes the overwhelming support of the

commenters for this specific proposal. GAMA's concerns that

recreational pilots will lack the necessary skill due to the revised

aeronautical experience requirements have been considered. However, the

FAA has determined that an acceptable level of safety will be

maintained because recreational pilots will receive additional training

equivalent to that of a private pilot, and other recreational pilot

restrictions will continue to apply. The rule change will benefit

general aviation by stimulating interest in recreational flying,

encouraging recreational pilots to seek additional certificates and

ratings, and promoting additional pilot training. The proposal is

therefore adopted in the final rule.

B. Recent Flight Experience

1. Takeoffs and Landings

Summary of proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to revise the recency

of experience requirements in Sec. 61.57. The proposed revisions in

Notice No. 95-11 included requiring all landings, not just night

landings, to be conducted to a full stop. The proposal also required

that these landings involve flight in the traffic pattern at the

recommended traffic pattern altitude for the airport.

Comments: More than 170 comments address the takeoff and landing

aspect of recency of experience. Approximately 65 percent of the

comments oppose the proposal.

Most of the opposition concerns the proposal to require all

landings to be conducted to a full stop and to involve flight in the

traffic pattern and at the recommended traffic pattern altitude for the

airport.

AOPA expresses opposition to the requirement for full-stop

landings. The commenter does not believe that the FAA has presented any

evidence that full-stop landings are safer than touch-and-go landings.

According to AOPA, the proposal will cause a significant increase in

airport congestion and pollution, in training time spent on the ground,

and in the overall costs of maintaining proficiency. The commenter also

states that there is no safety evidence to support the requirement that

the landings be performed in the traffic pattern from the recommended

pattern altitude. AOPA comments that rotorcraft rarely fly a complete

traffic pattern, because to do so would create a hazardous mix of

dissimilar aircraft. According to the commenter, the proposal also

would lead to decreased efficiency for glider operations and emergency

procedures training.

NBAA comments that the requirement for full-stop landings

eliminates the efficient touch-and-go maneuver without justification,

while adding to airport congestion and aircraft operators' costs. NBAA

also objects to the language of proposed Sec. 61.57(a)(iii), because it

can be interpreted as requiring ``a circuit in the traffic pattern.''

The commenter states that most pilots combine currency landings with

other flight operations rather than full circuits in the traffic

pattern, and the proposal might require dispatching aircraft and crews

specifically for currency takeoffs and landings, thereby adding time

and expense.

HAI expresses opposition to proposed Sec. 61.57(a)(1)(iii)

requiring that all takeoffs and landings be conducted in the traffic

pattern at the recommended traffic pattern altitude. The commenter

states that helicopters do not always fly to or from airports, or

operate in the traffic pattern if at an airport. HAI suggests modifying

the proposed rule to require each takeoff and landing to be separated

by an en route phase of flight.

SSA states that, at some gliderports, the currency landings are

performed on a nonactive runway to avoid conflicts with the normal

traffic patterns. SSA suggests modifying Sec. 61.57 to reflect this

practice.

Generally, individual commenters express opinions similar to those

of the associations. Several individual commenters state that the

proposed requirements are not applicable to balloon operations, and

therefore the current rule should be retained. They cite operations in

an airport traffic pattern, for example, and one commenter asks what

``full stop'' means in relation to balloons.

FAA Response: After consideration of the comments, the FAA has

decided to withdraw the proposed requirement that landings involve

flight in the traffic pattern and at the recommended traffic pattern

altitude for the airport. In addition, the FAA will not go forward with

the requirement for full-stop landings because, as indicated by the

commenters, there is no cost justification for the measure, and it will

result in increased congestion at airports. However, the FAA is

retaining the current full-stop requirements for tailwheel aircraft, as

well as for night landings.

2. Recent Instrument Experience

Summary of proposal/issues: The FAA proposed to revise the

instrument recency of experience requirements of Sec. 61.57 by

eliminating the requirement for 6 hours of flight in actual or

simulated instrument conditions every 6 months. For aircraft other than

gliders, the proposal required that a pilot, within the preceding 6

calendar months, perform and log at least six instrument approaches;

holding procedures; intercepting and tracking of very high frequency

omnirange (VOR) radials and nondirectional beacon (NDB) bearings;

recovery from unusual flight attitudes; and flight by reference to

instruments. The preamble to the NPRM stated that these maneuvers and

procedures would not be required to be performed in actual or simulated

instrument flight conditions.

Comments: More than 385 comments were received on this issue. The

comments reflect widely disparate opinions. More than 200 comments

express clear opposition to the proposal. Nearly as many comments take

issue with parts of the proposal, and propose variations to it.

Approximately 60 comments agree with the proposal. Some commenters

indicate that they believe the proposal would make it more difficult

and costly to remain current for operations under IFR. One commenter,

however, says he believes the proposal will permit pilots who do not

fly as frequently to stay current and

[[Page 16227]]

continue to have access to the IFR system.

GAMA supports the elimination of the minimum hour requirement for

instrument currency. GAMA, however, believes that a minimum of 50

percent of the time spent performing maneuvers should be in actual or

simulated instrument flight conditions, or in an approved flight

simulator or flight training device.

In its comment, ALPA expresses concern regarding several aspects of

the proposed instrument currency requirements. According to ALPA, the

requirement for the use of NDBs may not be practical because NDBs are

being removed from service. The commenter also believes that there

should be an option to allow operations using the global positioning

system (GPS). Although ALPA agrees with the need for unusual attitude

training, the commenter states that there needs to be FAA guidance on

practice methods and procedures. ALPA also contends that recency of

experience maneuvers should be performed in either instrument or

simulated instrument conditions.

NAFI opposes specifying the use of any particular equipment, such

as VORs and NDBs, for instrument currency and suggests the requirement

should simply be for ``navigation by reference to instruments.'' It is

NAFI's position that unusual attitude training is appropriate for

flight reviews, not currency requirements, and should not be performed

without a safety pilot.

NATA opposes several aspects of Sec. 61.57. The commenter contends

that unusual attitude maneuvers belong in instrument training and BFR

requirements, not in instrument currency requirements. NATA also

believes that the requirement that VORs and NDBs be used for several

tasks is too restrictive. NATA recommends that the tasks be performed

``with the available navigational technology.'' NATA, however, supports

requiring six approaches rather than the 6 hours for currency.

In its comments, NBAA recommends that the number of approaches for

currency purposes should be left at 6 rather than 12, as noted in the

preamble to the NPRM. NBAA also contends that references to VORs and

NDBs should be deleted because these navigational aids are rapidly

becoming obsolete. In addition, the commenter opposes unusual attitude

training.

AOPA comments that the elimination of the 6 hours of required

instrument time will benefit general aviation economically. The

commenter also finds the requirement for six approaches to be an

acceptable minimum for proficiency. With regard to holding procedures,

the association has no strong objection to the proposal but questions

the need for such a requirement. AOPA states there is no current safety

problem in this area and, except for airline pilots, holding procedures

are rarely encountered. Also, according to AOPA, it is not appropriate

to specify the types of navigational aids that should be used for

instrument currency because of the transition to newer technologies

such as GPS. AOPA also points out that many aircraft are not equipped

with an ADF receiver. The commenter objects to the requirement for

unusual attitudes currency for the same reasons expressed by NAFI. Like

ALPA and GAMA, AOPA believes that the instrument currency procedures

should be performed in either actual or simulated conditions. The

commenter states that if the FAA does not intend to require flight in

actual or simulated conditions, Sec. 61.57(c)(2) should be clarified to

prevent varying interpretations of the rule. AOPA also strongly

supports the use of simulators and flight training devices, including

some PC-based simulators, for currency and proficiency.

Like many of the other commenters, HAI objects to the requirement

for recovery from unusual attitudes. The commenter also states that

commercial or corporate pilots will not be able to maintain currency in

the normal course of flight because of the proposals. HAI supports

eliminating the 6 hours of instrument time for currency, but proposes

deleting holding procedures and unusual altitude currency, and changing

the requirement to track VORs radials and NDB bearings to

``intercepting and tracking electronic navigation aids.''

Comments from individual commenters, for the most part, agree with

the positions advanced by the associations.

FAA Response: After consideration of the comments, the FAA has

decided to withdraw the requirement for recovery from unusual

attitudes. The FAA agrees with commenters who point out that practicing

these maneuvers would require a safety pilot and increase the cost of

maintaining instrument proficiency with only questionable safety

benefits.

In addition, the FAA has determined that the requirement for

intercepting and tracking VOR radials and NDB bearings should be

modified. The final rule requires pilots to intercept and track

``courses through the use of navigation systems.'' As noted by the

commenters, advances in air navigation technology support deleting the

reference to specific navigation systems. The FAA maintains that

requiring completion of specific training tasks, such as intercepting

and tracking courses and holding procedures, provides a safety benefit

by improving operational currency and the proficiency of pilots. For

this reason, the final rule includes the requirement for holding

procedures. The proposed requirement for six approaches also is

incorporated into the final rule.

The FAA has decided to retain the current requirement that the

tasks to meet recent instrument experience requirements be performed

and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions. This

requirement can be met in an aircraft of the appropriate category, in

an approved flight simulator, or a flight training device that is

representative of the aircraft category.

As proposed in the NPRM, the final rule will not include a minimum

hour requirement to meet instrument currency. The elimination of this

requirement will provide pilots economic relief by permitting currency

requirements to be completed in less time.

Other proposed changes to Sec. 61.57 are discussed in the section-

by-section analysis of Sec. 61.57.

C. Lighter-Than-Air Flight Instructor Certificate

Summary of proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 61.5 to

establish new flight instructor ratings for lighter-than-air category

aircraft. Section 61.3 included a provision to permit holders of a

commercial certificate with an airship or free balloon class rating to

conduct training in the appropriate aircraft for 2 years after issuance

of the final rule; the 2-year conversion process was contained in

proposed Sec. 61.201. Proposed Sec. 61.187 required that a person who

trains an applicant for a lighter-than-air flight instructor

certificate meet requirements comparable to flight instructor

applicants training in other aircraft categories. The proposal was

partly a result of input received from balloon operators and

organizations in public meetings held during the regulatory review in

1989, and from public comments filed in the docket during this

regulatory review and prior to the issuance of Notice No. 95-11.

Comments: More than 880 comments were submitted on this issue, the

majority regarding the proposed requirement's effect on balloon flight

training rather than airship flight training. Many of those commenters

oppose the proposal. (One commenter includes a petition opposing the

[[Page 16228]]

proposal and signed by over 400 persons.) Commenters identify

themselves as individual pilots and representatives of businesses

involved in ballooning, including manufacturers and providers of

balloon flights and training.

In general, many of these commenters contend that the current

system of commercial balloon pilots providing flight instruction works

well, and that because of the small numbers of balloons, pilots, and

days with acceptable weather for balloon flight, ballooning should be

treated differently than other aircraft categories. Some commenters ask

what specific quality-of-instruction issues the FAA meant to address

with the proposal. The commenters contend that ballooning has an

outstanding safety record, and that creation of the new flight

instructor certificate would make training harder to obtain, for both

initial pilot certification and for flight reviews.

The BFA strongly opposes the proposal, stating that the proposal

would ``lead to severe economic, safety, and time burdens to all

balloon pilots, to the point where it will cause a significant decline

in our sport.'' The BFA's comment states that there is no current

safety problem to justify the proposal, and that consistent use of the

Practical Test Standards by designated examiners has ensured that

balloon instructors obtain necessary skills. The BFA states that the

safest learning scenario is for student pilots to train in the area

where they will do most of their flying, so that they can learn local

weather and terrain conditions. This will not be feasible if

prospective pilots, except those who live in the few major urban

centers where there is a large amount of balloon activity, are forced

to obtain training from nonlocal training facilities. The BFA also

states that students in such circumstances probably would lose the

benefit of more frequent training sessions.

SSA and NAFI also oppose the proposal. SSA comments that there has

been no demonstrated safety degradation under the current system, and

NAFI states that the FAA has failed to provide supporting evidence of a

need for the change. SSA points out that the BFA provides training

material and self-polices in a manner similar to the United States Hang

Gliding Association (USHGA).

AOPA objects to proposed Sec. 61.7, which addresses obsolete

certificates and ratings, because it would effectively invalidate all

balloon certificates issued before 1973. AOPA maintains that all

certificated airmen should be able to retain the privileges they

currently hold.

Individual commenters contend that few commercial balloon pilots

will seek the instructor certificate, partly because few areas of the

country have enough students to justify the expense of obtaining and

keeping the certificate current. They state that one of the methods of

flight instructor certificate renewal is particularly unrealistic in

ballooning: the provision in proposed Sec. 61.197(b)(1) to show a

record of training for at least five students in 24 months, at least 80

percent of whom passed the practical test on the first attempt. Several

commenters indicate that one student per year per commercial-pilot

instructor is more typical. One commenter also states that flight

instructor refresher courses for balloonists would be cost prohibitive

and impractical because there would be so few balloon instructors.

The commenters believe that the lack of flight instructors would

result in fewer instructors familiar with local flying conditions. They

believe that the lack of flight instructors also would force potential

students and pilots requiring flight reviews to travel long distances

to find flight instructors. Commenters also state that the low number

of suitable flying days would make the instructor hour requirements

hard to meet. Commenters generally contend that the proposal would have

a devastating impact on the industry by reducing the availability of

instruction, overall flight activity, balloon sales, and revenue

related to locally-sponsored balloon events. The Governor of Nebraska,

who opposes the proposal, states that the ``imposed hardship may

eliminate the sport of balloon flying in Nebraska.'' The Mayor of Omaha

also opposes the proposal because ``there is no evidence that the

current system is not working.'' The Nebraska Department of Aeronautics

also opposes the proposal.

Some commenters state that the FAA had previously made and rejected

this proposal, and that no further economic or safety studies were made

to justify proposing the flight instructor requirement again. Another

commenter suggested, as an alternative to creating a flight instructor

certificate, that instruction be given only by commercial balloon

pilots with at least 200 hours flight time and who fly at least 50

hours per year. Another commenter with a similar suggestion added that

the commercial pilots could be required to pass the advanced ground

instructor written (knowledge) test. Other commenter-suggested

alternatives included increasing the flight hour requirements for

certification, particularly at the commercial pilot (balloon) level,

and requiring commercial pilots who instruct to use a written syllabus

and maintain records of the training.

Representatives of Balloon Excelsior, a balloon flight school and

repair station, state that the proposal would result in better-trained,

safer, balloon pilots and would encourage the growth of ballooning.

They state that most balloon flight instruction under part 61 is

``casual'' and accomplished without a curriculum or proper

documentation, often during paid passenger sightseeing flights with

inadequate attention given to the student. These commenters state that

while many instructors do a fine job, many do not, and send their

students to take practical tests unprepared. According to these

commenters, one result of the proposal would be better performance on

biennial flight reviews, and that renewal requirements could be met

through flight instructor refresher clinics, which are not cost

prohibitive. One commenter states that he supports the proposal even

though a scarcity of qualified pilots would initially hurt his balloon

operation. He believes that the proposal would benefit the industry in

the long run by increasing professionalism and improving safety.

Another commenter who supports the proposal, with reservations,

recommends reducing the number of students an instructor would have to

endorse for renewal of the instructor certificate from five to two,

every 24 months, but with a passing rate of 100 percent.

FAA Response: The FAA has decided to withdraw the proposed flight

instructor certificate in the lighter-than-air category. After further

review of the proposal, the FAA has concluded that operational

requirements and accident/incident data do not establish a sufficient

safety justification for the increased regulatory and economic burden.

Section 61.133 of the final rule provides that a person with a

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

may: (1) Give flight and ground training in an airship or balloon for

the issuance of a certificate or rating; (2) give an endorsement on a

pilot certificate for an airship or balloon; (3) endorse a student

pilot certificate or logbook for solo operating privileges in an

airship or balloon; and (4) act as pilot in command of an airship under

IFR or in weather conditions less than the minimum prescribed for VFR

flight.

[[Page 16229]]

D. New Instrument Ratings

1. Single-Engine and Multiengine Ratings

Summary of the proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 61.5

to establish additional instrument ratings for single-engine and

multiengine airplanes. For airplanes, currently only one instrument

rating exists. Additionally, the FAA also proposed to establish single-

engine and multiengine instrument ratings for flight instructors. The

FAA requested public comment on its proposed conversion process for

current holders of airplane instrument ratings to the new system.

Comments: Approximately 200 comments oppose the new instrument

ratings for single-engine and multiengine airplanes. Approximately 20

commenters favor the proposal. Approximately 160 comments are in

opposition to the single-engine and multiengine airplane instrument

ratings for flight instructors.

ALPA supports the proposed instrument ratings for single-engine and

multiengine aircraft. ALPA finds the proposal particularly important in

light of the removal of the minimum-hour requirement for an instrument

rating. The association contends that it would be inappropriate for

very low time pilots to have their single-engine instrument rating also

apply to multiengine airplanes.

GAMA supports class-specific instrument instructor ratings for

single-engine and multiengine airplanes. GAMA asks why the FAA does not

simply prohibit instrument instructors who do not hold a multiengine

instructor rating from giving instrument instruction in multiengine

aircraft. According to GAMA, this could be accomplished by adding a

limitation on the CFI's certificate that states ``instrument

instruction privileges are limited to single-engine aircraft.'' GAMA

believes that flight instructors holding multiengine instrument

instructor ratings should be able to provide instrument training in

single-engine aircraft. The commenter states that all pilots possessing

both multiengine and instrument instructor ratings on the effective

date of the rule should be ``grandfathered'' and issued an instrument

multiengine airplane rating without further examination or testing.

EAA, NAFI, and NATA oppose the proposal. EAA states that there is

no safety justification for the change and that it will cause

additional training and expense. NAFI expresses concern about current

instrument pilots and instrument instructors who do not comply with the

proposed certificate exchange procedures. NATA contends that the

current system is safe and efficient, and states that the proposal

would place an undue financial burden on those who wish to obtain the

new ratings. NATA estimates the cost of the new multiengine rating at

$1,250 for training (10 hours at $125/hour), and $300 for the practical

test and designated examiner. NATA states that the current system, in

which instrument proficiency is demonstrated during a multiengine

instructor check ride, is sufficient. NATA also contends that any

conversion of current flight instructor certificates and ratings should

award any pilot holding a CFII and MEI certificate the new certificates

upon implementation of the new regulations.

AOPA also objects to the proposal. The association believes that

the current system, which requires an applicant for a multiengine

airplane class rating or multiengine airplane instructor rating to

demonstrate instrument or instrument instruction competency during the

practical examination, is sufficient. AOPA comments that it appears

from the NTSB investigation of the 1981 multiengine accident cited by

the FAA in the NPRM that the pilot became disoriented in instrument

meteorological conditions (IMC). AOPA believes that the accident had

little to do with the adequacy of the pilot's training in instrument

procedures for multiengine aircraft. AOPA maintains that the FAA should

not make drastic policy changes based on a single event. According to

AOPA, the proposal will be very costly for the pilot community and

would discourage pursuit of the multiengine instrument rating. AOPA

also states that if the FAA's intent in the proposed regulation is to

close an apparent loophole that permits a CFII who is not an MEI to

give instrument instruction in a multiengine airplane, then the

regulation should state this rather than requiring the new

certificates.

In its comment, AOPA also expressed concern about inconsistencies

in the preamble to the NPRM and the actual language in the provisions

for conversion of existing instructor certificates. AOPA notes that the

preamble indicates that a person may exchange his or her existing

instrument certificate for the new instrument airplane multiengine

rating if one of three conditions is met. AOPA states that the third

condition, which provides for the ``grandfathering'' of a person who

held an airplane multiengine class rating and had satisfactorily

completed the practical test for an instrument rating in a single-

engine airplane before October 4, 1984, was omitted from the proposed

rule. It is AOPA's position that the only pilots who should not receive

automatic conversion to the new certificate are those who currently

have a limitation on their certificates that states that operations are

restricted to ``Airplane Multiengine VFR only.'' AOPA also contends

that the conversion provisions favor instructors who teach full-time at

flight schools, and that the provisions will result in a majority of

multiengine airplane instructors losing their instruction privileges.

According to AOPA, very few multiengine instructors actually provide

instrument instruction in multiengine airplanes, and, therefore, they

would be unable to meet the requirement of 20 hours of such

instruction. AOPA further notes that a vast number of CFIIs have never

endorsed a student for an instrument airplane practical test, and would

also be unable to meet the conversion requirement for both the single-

engine and multiengine CFII privileges. AOPA recommends that all

current CFII-MEI instructors should be ``grandfathered'' under the new

system.

Individual commenters who oppose the proposal in Notice No. 95-11

to create separate instrument ratings for single-engine and multiengine

airplanes contend that the number of engines issue and the instrument

procedures issue are independent, and that instrument procedures,

including engine-out approaches, normally are part of the multiengine

practical test. These commenters contend that instrument procedures do

not essentially change from a single-engine to a multiengine airplane.

Some commenters state that the proposal does not seem justified by the

NTSB's recommendation, which was followed when the FAA instituted a

policy to require that multiengine airplane rating candidates

demonstrate proficiency in instrument procedures or receive a ``VFR

only'' limitation with their multiengine rating.

One commenter who favors the two new instrument ratings states that

the system would make instrument flying safer and instrument operations

in a multiengine airplane ``easier.'' Echoing AOPA's comments, one

individual commenter notes that instrument instructors who routinely

instruct in multiengine airplanes typically do not endorse students for

instrument rating practical tests. Such instruction is one of the

conditions proposed for converting a current airplane instrument flight

instructor certificate to the new system. However, the commenter states

that such instructors may teach advanced courses for instrument- and

[[Page 16230]]

airline transport pilot (ATP)-rated pilots. Another commenter states

that the proposed system of conversion to the new flight instructor

airplane single-engine and multiengine ratings would place an

unwarranted economic burden upon relatively new, part-time, or

independent flight instructors. One commenter states that the FAA did

not provide supporting safety data in the NPRM indicating that

multiengine instrument instruction has been inadequate, and a number of

commenters assert that there would be no safety benefit from the

proposal. Consistent with AOPA's position, individual commenters state

that they believe many flight instructors currently providing

multiengine airplane instrument instruction would not qualify under the

proposal. One commenter also notes that multiengine examiners may not

qualify under the proposal either. One commenter suggests changing

proposed Sec. 61.201(h)(2)(i) to include time providing instrument

competency checks in multiengine airplanes, while a number of

commenters request a more liberal ``grandfather'' clause.

Another individual commenter expresses concern that the proposal

would require an additional practical test in a multiengine airplane

(apparently referring to separate practical tests for the multiengine

rating and the multiengine instrument rating). He states that the

current policy (of requiring demonstration of instrument proficiency on

the multiengine practical test) is sufficient.

FAA Response: The FAA is persuaded by the public comments regarding

the unintended negative effects that would result from the creation of

multiengine and single-engine instrument and instrument instructor

ratings. Current accident/incident data show that there are no safety

problems resulting from the existing rules. Therefore, the FAA finds

that there is insufficient safety justification for the increased

regulatory and economic burden, and has eliminated the proposal from

the final rule.

2. Airship

Summary of proposal/issue: The FAA also proposed to amend Sec. 61.5

to establish an instrument rating for airships. The FAA noted that

smaller, foreign' built airships are operated in the United States, and

it was hoped that industry growth would be accompanied by the need for

more airship pilots. A separate airship instrument rating was intended

to remove an obstacle from the certification of commercial airship

pilots desiring to fly smaller, non-IFR-equipped airships, and to help

foster growth of this small segment of the aviation industry.

Comments: NAFI and AOPA oppose the proposed requirement for an

instrument rating to instruct in an airship. The commenters state that

there is no problem with existing training, which is conducted almost

entirely in VFR conditions. AOPA also comments that such a requirement

would increase training costs with no increase in safety. Individual

commenters echoed the association's position on this issue. One

individual commenter supports the proposal because it may foster the

growth of the United States airship industry.

FAA Response: The FAA has decided not to establish an instrument

rating for airships, because operational requirements and accident/

incident data do not establish a sufficient safety justification for

the increased regulatory and economic burden.

3. Powered-Lift

Summary of proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 61.5 to

establish an additional instrument rating for powered-lifts, with a

corresponding instructor rating.

Comments: Some commenters oppose the instrument rating requirements

for powered-lifts. However, most commenters objected in general to the

additional powered-lift category of aircraft.

FAA Response: As discussed in section IV,E of this preamble, the

FAA is confident that powered-lifts will be useful in civilian

operations in the future, and a separate instrument rating will be

required, which is incorporated into the rule.

E. Requirements for Instrument Ratings

Summary of proposal/issue: The FAA proposed numerous revisions to

Sec. 61.65, the most significant of which was revising the eligibility

criteria for applicants for the instrument rating to parallel standards

set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The

proposal eliminated the requirement for a minimum of 125 hours of total

flight time, including 50 hours of pilot-in-command cross-country time.

This proposed change to Sec. 61.65, comments received regarding the

proposal, and the FAA response are discussed here as one major issue.

Other changes to Sec. 61.65 are discussed in the section-by-section

discussion.

Comments: Approximately 150 comments address the proposed

elimination of the minimum 125-hour requirement. Of these,

approximately 110 favor the proposal, and the rest are either in

opposition or suggest an alternative. Approximately 120 comments

specifically address the 50-hour cross-country experience requirement,

with 75 of those supporting the proposal and the rest either in

opposition or suggesting an alternative. The commenters' reasoning on

the two proposals follow essentially the same lines. Those who favor

eliminating the requirements consider them arbitrary and unnecessary

obstacles for pilots who seek the instrument rating, which can make

them safer pilots. Those who favor maintaining the requirements state

that exposure to different operating environments is important for

``seasoning'' pilots so they are better prepared for flight under IFR.

GAMA supports eliminating the 125-hour total time requirement for

an instrument rating. GAMA comments that a disproportionate number of

general aviation accidents occur when VFR pilots encounter IFR weather

conditions, and allowing pilots to begin instrument training sooner

will positively impact safety. GAMA also supports eliminating the 50-

hour cross-country requirement for similar reasons. AOPA echoes GAMA's

comments and states that encouraging such training is probably the

single greatest step in decades toward reducing the general aviation

accident rate.

FAA Response: The FAA has determined that eliminating the 125-hour

total time requirement removes burdensome regulations that add cost

without demonstrated need, parallels ICAO standards and recommended

practices, and will encourage more pilots to receive instrument

training at an earlier stage in their career. This proposal is adopted

in the final rule. After further review, the FAA has decided to retain

the 50 hours of cross-country pilot-in-command time required for the

instrument rating. The FAA deems that this change is necessary in order

to comply with minimum requirements under Annex 1 to the Convention on

International Civil Aviation and for U.S. pilot certificates with an

instrument rating to be recognized internationally.

F. New Aircraft Category and Class Ratings

1. Powered-Lift

Summary of the proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to add a powered-

lift category for the private pilot through ATP certificates, as well

as for the flight instructor certificate. Minimum experience

requirements for the

[[Page 16231]]

powered-lift ratings were developed based on the current minimum

experience requirements for airplane ratings.

Comments: Approximately 65 comments addressed the establishment of

the powered-lift category. Of these comments, over 40 oppose the

proposal and more than 20 express support, while the rest either do not

express a clear opinion or offer other suggestions.

Both NAFI and EAA oppose the proposal. NAFI states that there is

insufficient information available for the aviation industry to

properly evaluate the establishment of powered-lift requirements, and

recommends deleting all references to powered-lifts from the proposed

regulations. EAA indicates its support for NAFI's comments.

AOPA also questions the need for a separate airman certificate

category for powered-lifts. They believe that the implementation of the

new category is premature, if not entirely unnecessary, because there

are no viable aircraft of this type on the market today. AOPA states

that the skills necessary to fly this type of aircraft would duplicate

those of the nearly 1,200 ATPs who are already certificated in both

airplanes and rotorcraft. AOPA suggests that the proposal be amended to

require future powered-lift airmen to possess ratings in both airplanes

and helicopters, and specifically type rate these individuals when and

if powered-lifts reach the market. According to AOPA, this approach

would eliminate a myriad of testing, licensing, and certification

requirements that will likely remain dormant for many years. AOPA

recommends withdrawing all sections in the proposed rule relating to

powered-lift aircraft until it becomes evident that such aircraft will

find applications in the civil marketplace.

FAA Response: The FAA has determined that a new powered-lift

category should be established. Industry is currently developing

powered-lifts, and current pilot certification standards do not

adequately reflect the certification requirements for powered-lifts.

Current certification standards were not drafted with the intent of

certificating powered-lift pilots. The FAA recognizes the importance of

anticipating further developments in aviation technology. Therefore,

the FAA contends that these new regulations are necessary to respond to

future needs of aviation. The proposal is adopted in the final rule and

modified to include provisions permitting the use of approved powered-

lift flight simulators and approved powered-lift flight training

devices to satisfy certain training and aeronautical experience

requirements for persons seeking certification to pilot powered-lifts.

2. Glider Class Ratings

Summary of the proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to establish class

ratings for powered gliders and nonpowered gliders within the glider

category for the private pilot through commercial pilot certificates,

as well as the flight instructor certificate.

Comments: Approximately 85 comments are in opposition to the new

glider class ratings and approximately 40 are in favor. Another 20

comments do not express a clear opinion on the question or suggest

alternative proposals. However, many of these 20 comments appear to

favor the concept of the two class ratings, but contend that glider

pilots who have nonpowered glider experience as well as an airplane

pilot certificate should be considered qualified for the powered glider

rating. One commenter states that glider flight instructors who

performed their practical test in a nonpowered glider should not be

required to demonstrate 20 hours of instruction experience in that

class to convert their flight instructor certificates as proposed in

Sec. 61.201.

A number of the proposal's supporters submitted signed form

letters. The letters recommend dividing the glider category into

nonpowered glider and powered-glider classes, and call for the

incorporation of the powered glider flight and test requirements of

Advisory Circular (AC) No. 61-94 into the regulation. The form letter

proposes a different conversion system from current certificates to the

new certificates than what was proposed in Secs. 61.5 and 61.201. The

letter recommends that flight instructors be permitted to add the

powered-glider class rating to their certificates after completing 20

hours of flight time in a powered glider and completing training and

testing in accordance with AC No. 61-94; or by holding a flight

instructor airplane single-engine land rating and logging 20 hours in a

powered glider. The same letter recommends that holders of private or

commercial glider pilot certificates be permitted to receive the

powered glider rating if they have logged either a minimum of 25 hours,

including at least 10 flights in a powered glider during the preceding

24 months, have a current flight review, and have a logbook entry

showing completion of training in accordance with AC No. 61-94. The

form letter also recommends that holders of glider pilot certificates

be able to convert to the new certificate with a nonpowered glider

class rating if they have completed a current flight review.

ASA's comment opposes the separation of the glider category into

powered and nonpowered-glider classes. The commenter states that

auxiliary-powered sailplanes are, for all practical purposes,

nonpowered gliders, except for the ability to self-launch. ASA suggests

changes to the proposed regulations that would meet the goals of the

NPRM, with respect to gliders, without requiring the creation of

separate classes within the glider category. ASA recommends that

training requirements for gliders be consolidated under a single glider

category with subheadings listing additional training for powered

sailplanes. ASA proposes that AC No. 61-69, which addresses powered

sailplanes, should be referred to in the regulation specifying the

areas of operation for glider category ratings. Pilots seeking to

obtain a powered-glider rating should first be required to complete the

training required for a nonpowered glider rating. ASA proposes expanded

definitions of ``flight time'' and ``flight training'' that take

gliders into account.

ASA also comments that pilots and flight instructors with glider

category ratings, including those currently experienced in auxiliary-

powered sailplanes, should retain their ratings and should not be

required to take an additional practical test. ASA also states that the

proposed conversion requirements for glider flight instructors do not

consider the fact that much advanced glider instruction takes place

entirely in single-seat gliders, with the instructor in one glider and

a student following the instructor in another glider. ASA believes a

statement authorizing such training as flight instruction is necessary.

SSA opposes the division of the glider category into two classes

because the flight characteristics of gliders, whether powered or

nonpowered, are essentially the same. SSA acknowledges that powered

gliders may require knowledge levels similar to those of powered

aircraft, but believes that there are similarities between all

aircraft, and that these similarities are addressed in the knowledge

and flight tests. SSA is concerned that the FAA does not recognize the

efforts expended by instructors and flight schools to ensure pilots are

adequately trained in these areas. SSA notes that the existence of AC

No. 61-94, which, the commenter states, has been instrumental in

achieving safe operation of auxiliary-powered sailplanes. SSA contends

that there are only 200 licensed powered sailplanes in the United

States, and that

[[Page 16232]]

there is an inadequate distribution of two-place powered sailplanes to

respond to the NPRM's requirements. SSA states that it ``seems beyond

the scope of lessening the burden of regulatory reform to establish a

class rating for such a minimal size group who has not shown a

propensity to denigrate safety.'' SSA suggests that pilots should be

required to acquire a ``certificate with a glider category,'' obtain a

logbook endorsement for each launch method demonstrated, and follow a

syllabus to reach certification.

EAA supports SSA's comments to the proposed class ratings for

powered and nonpowered gliders and believes there is no safety

justification to support the proposal. EAA specifically objects to the

proposed powered glider rating for private pilots as set forth in

Sec. 61.109(b)(5), and recommends incorporating a power glider

endorsement rather than adding a rating.

NAFI and AOPA also object to the establishment of separate glider

class ratings. According to these commenters, an endorsement specifying

``self-powered launch'' privileges would be sufficient. NAFI also

states that the FAA has failed to provide evidence justifying the

proposal on safety grounds. The commenters contend that if the proposal

is adopted, all present glider pilots should automatically receive a

new certificate with both powered and nonpowered glider privileges.

NAFI also states that an individual who holds a glider rating and an

airplane category rating should be able to obtain a powered glider

rating without a further showing of proficiency.

Some of the individual commenters who oppose the proposal state

that AC No. 61-94 addresses the issue of flight instructors endorsing

pilots to fly powered gliders. One commenter states that most glider

instructors are also rated in powered aircraft, and that the proposed

system would make it more difficult to find an appropriate instructor.

FAA Response: After reviewing the comments, the FAA has decided not

to create separate class ratings for nonpowered and powered gliders.

Instead, the FAA has decided to accept the alternative suggested by

industry that would establish training and endorsement requirements for

specific glider operations in lieu of placing limitations on pilot

certificates as is currently required. This change will reduce the

regulatory burden on the public, as well as the administrative burden

for the FAA, while providing a level of safety equivalent to the

current regulations. The FAA has added paragraph (k) to Sec. 61.31,

which provides training and endorsement requirements for operating

gliders.

G. English Language Requirements

Summary of the proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to delete

exceptions to requirements for applicants to be able to read, speak,

write, and understand the English language at all certificate levels

and ratings, as well as in the case of certificates issued on the basis

of foreign pilot licenses under Sec. 61.75. The FAA also proposed to

delete references to the ability to write in English and to speak

without accent or impediment that would interfere with two-way radio

communication at the ATP certificate level in Sec. 61.151.

Comments: ALPA and NAFI support the proposed English language

requirements. NAFI believes the potential for communications error will

decrease under the proposal.

IDPA states that, while it would support a proposal to standardize

the English language fluency requirements, it cannot support the

proposed change because it would discriminate against individuals who

are deaf, hard of hearing, or otherwise speech impaired. IDPA opposes

eliminating the provision that allows special limitations to be placed

on pilot certificates restricting operations in airspace where the

English language is required. IDPA suggests that the proposal be

modified to allow the retention of the special limitation provisions

for Americans fluent in the English language who are deaf, hard of

hearing, or speech impaired.

The NSFD states that it supports the opinions expressed by IDPA.

The DCARA joins in these concerns and states that there is no reason to

restrict deaf and speech-impaired pilots from flying in airspace where

communications are not necessary.

PVA opposes the effect of the proposed changes to the English

language requirements on individuals with hearing or speech

impairments, and states that the changes would make these individuals

ineligible for pilot certification under Secs. 61.96, 61.103, or 61.123

on the basis of their disability. PVA urges the FAA to ensure that the

eligibility requirements do not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis

of a disability.

In its comment, AOPA states that it supports the position of IDPA.

AOPA states that qualifying language that made special provision for

hearing and speech impaired individuals has been inappropriately

deleted from Secs. 61.103(b) and 61.213(a)(2). AOPA further comments

that Secs. 61.83(c), 61.96(b), and 61.123(b) also single out qualified

pilots with speech and hearing impairments, and are likely to be in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

HAI also expresses a concern that someone who is speech or hearing

impaired would not meet the requirements to read, write, speak, and

understand the English language. The commenter also objects to proposed

Sec. 61.83, because many foreign students who train in the U.S. do not

become more fluent until later in their training, and would therefore

be eliminated from eligibility under the proposed change. HAI

recommends retaining the language of the existing rule.

Individual commenters also express concern about the proposal's

effect on speech and hearing impaired individuals. Other commenters who

did not address the implications for speech and hearing impaired

individuals support the proposal, stating that it would improve

communications and safety. One commenter feels that the FAA should not

eliminate the rule language requiring ATP applicants to speak English

without accent or impediment and disagrees with the FAA's statement

that the rule language is superfluous in light of the proposed changes

to the rule.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that there was an unintended effect in

the proposed rule change that would prevent deaf pilots, and pilots

with other medical conditions that have a command of the English

language, from meeting the eligibility requirements for a pilot

certificate. The FAA has determined, however, for safety concerns, that

operations in the NAS do require a basic command of the English

language. Therefore, as proposed, the FAA is removing the exceptions

that permit pilots to be certificated without a basic command of the

English language. The FAA has added a provision to the eligibility

requirements for pilot certification to permit individuals who have a

command of the English language, but who may not be able to meet the

proposed requirements due to a medical condition, to have limitations

placed on their pilot certificates that would continue to permit them

to exercise the privileges of their certificate.

H. Areas of Operation

Summary of the proposal/issue: In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA

proposed general areas of operation to be addressed in training and on

practical tests, for all pilot and instructor certification. This was a

departure from specifying the required maneuvers and procedures in the

FAR. The specific

[[Page 16233]]

tasks to be performed would be contained in the practical test

standards (PTS), based on the areas of operation listed in the

regulations.

Comments: Approximately 65 comments address the proposal to use

generalized areas of operation in the regulations, and a large majority

opposed the proposal. Commenters object that the FAA could revise

requirements for certificates and ratings without issuing an NPRM and

soliciting public comments. One commenter states that this change would

not be in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. One

commenter questions the proposed terminology and states that while the

proposal refers to performing areas of operation, pilots actually

perform tasks within areas of operation, which the commenter states

should clearly be referred to in the regulation as those specified in

part 61.

SSA supports the FAA's decision for the FAR to refer to those areas

of operation and tasks that coincide with the PTS. SSA believes that

this change will eliminate the confusion between the PTS and the FAR.

However, SSA expresses a concern that this proposed change will only

result in the promulgation of more tasks for each area of operation.

According to SSA, the cost of learning to fly has significantly

increased because the amount of required training has changed over the

years, and the commenter does not believe that these increased

requirements have resulted in a significant decrease in accidents.

FAA Response: The FAA is adopting this proposal in order to be more

responsive to advances in training and technology, and to accident and

incident trends. While the FAA recognizes the commenters' concerns, the

FAA finds that they are unfounded. Changing the hour requirements for

certification in the future would need to be conducted using a formal

rulemaking process with its associated notice and comment procedures.

When revising the PTS, the FAA's Flight Standard Service actively seeks

comments from the public, and continuously accepts comments requesting

changes for future PTS revisions.

V. Section By Section Analysis

Part 1--Definitions and Abbreviations

Section 1.1 General definitions.

The FAA proposed revising the definitions of balloon, flight time,

and pilot in command.

Comments: Individual commenters agree with the FAA's concept of

distinguishing between the requirements for gas balloons and balloons

with airborne heaters, but suggest variations on use of the

terminology. One commenter, for example, suggests using ``gas balloon''

and ``hot air balloon;'' another, however, suggests ``balloon'' and

``balloon with airborne heater.''

FAA Response: After reviewing the comments, the FAA has decided to

modify the language defining ``balloon'' to state ``a lighter-than-air

aircraft that is not engine driven, and that sustains flight through

the use of either gas buoyancy or an airborne heater.'' In addition,

the FAA has modified the definition of ``pilot in command'' in proposed

paragraph (b)(4), withdrawing the reference to ``actual flight

conditions.'' A number of commenters oppose the use of this language in

the proposed rule. Their comments are addressed in the discussion of

Sec. 61.1. The definition of flight time was adopted as proposed except

for a modification that replaced the term ``nonpowered glider'' in the

proposed definition with ``glider without self-launch capability.'' The

FAA also determined that the definition of ``powered-lift'' should be

added to this section because the new powered-lift category is adopted

in the final rule.

The proposal is adopted with the changes discussed and with other

minor editorial and formatting changes.

Discussion of Specific Proposals

The FAA proposes to change the title of part 61 to ``Certification:

Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors,'' because part 143

has been eliminated and the rules governing the certification of ground

instructors have been moved to part 61.

Special Federal Aviation Regulations

SFAR No. 58 Advanced Qualification Program

The final rule retains the reference to SFAR No. 58.

SFAR No. 73 Robinson R-22/R-44 Training and Experience Requirements

The final rule retains the provisions of SFAR No. 73.

Subpart A--General

Section 61.1 Applicability and definitions.

Section 61.1(a)

Section 61.1 is revised by adding the provision in paragraph (a)(2)

for pilot authorization, as well as deleting the reference to

Sec. 61.71 and inserting a reference to ``courses approved by the

Administrator under other parts of this chapter'' to incorporate

training programs under SFAR No. 58, proposed training centers, and

part 141 pilot schools.

Section 61.1(b)

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to create a new section,

61.1a, to clarify 15 terms used throughout part 61 as follows:

aeronautical experience; airman certificate; authorized ground

instructor; authorized flight instructor; cross-country time; examiner;

flight training; ground training; instrument approach; instrument

training; knowledge test; pilot time; practical test; supervised pilot-

in-command time; and training time. For ease of reference, proposed

Sec. 61.1a and the definition of terms contained in current Sec. 61.2

as adopted in Amendment No. 61-100, ``Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in

Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking at Training Centers,'' have been

incorporated into Sec. 61.1.

Comments: Approximately 200 comments were received in response to

the clarification of terms. SSA comments that part 1 is the appropriate

place to define terms, instead of Sec. 61.1a. One commenter, who was in

general agreement with the proposed clarification of terms section,

requests that the FAA define ``training'' for purposes of logbook

entries. Another requests that ``compensation or hire'' be defined in

Sec. 61.1(a). Another commenter requests that the FAA define the term

``route'' as used in proposed Sec. 61.129(a)(4)(ii). Other comments

specifically address the proposed terms and definitions.

AOPA opposes the exclusion of student pilot certificates from the

definition of airman certificates because these certificates are

subject to most of the part 61 provisions for airman certification.

SSA supports the adoption of the term ``supervised pilot in

command'' because it will help eliminate the confusion surrounding

``solo flight'' and reinforces the principle that the CFI supervises

all solo flights by students. GAMA supports allowing student pilots to

log pilot-in-command time under certain conditions, but it finds the

definition of ``supervised pilot in command'' vague and open to varying

interpretations.

AOPA urges the FAA to withdraw the entire concept of ``supervised

pilot in command'' and retain the current definitions of dual and solo

instruction time. Although the commenter supports clarifying the policy

with respect to permitting student pilots to log solo time as pilot-in-

command time toward future certificates and ratings, AOPA believes that

there are numerous conflicts between the application of this new term

and many sections in part 61.

[[Page 16234]]

According to the commenter, the term creates confusion as to what truly

is ``solo'' time. AOPA also states that the proposed definition raises

liability concerns for instructors because of the use of the term

``supervised'' for flights when an instructor does not truly supervise

a student or pilot. The commenter notes there is no provision in

proposed Sec. 61.51 for logging supervised pilot-in-command time.

NAFI opposes the wording of the definition of ``supervised pilot in

command.'' NAFI states that, except for aircraft type certificated for

more than one crewmember, ``a flight instructor should not be on board

an aircraft when a student is conducting a supervised pilot-in-command

flight.'' NATA states that it supports permitting student pilots to log

pilot-in-command time but that proposed Sec. 61.51 provides adequately

for this. NATA recommends retaining the term ``solo'' to eliminate any

confusion associated with the new term. NATA also states that the

proposed term does not clearly indicate whether an instructor is

permitted to be on board an aircraft. NATA also states that the term

does not appear to be applicable to advanced training.

HAI comments that the proposed term leads to confusion in other

areas of the regulations and recommends retaining the term ``solo.''

The commenter asks whether pilot-in-command time counts as supervised

pilot-in-command time.

FAA Response: In response to the cited comments, the FAA

acknowledges that certain definitions would not clarify part 61.

Therefore, the FAA has decided to not include the definitions for

``airman certificate,'' ``authorized ground instructor,'' ``authorized

flight instructor,'' and ``supervised pilot in command'' in the final

rule. The FAA agrees that the definition of ``airman certificate''

conflicts with the U.S. Code and the FAR, and should be deleted. The

FAA has removed the definitions for ``authorized flight instructor''

and ``authorized ground instructor'' and replaced them with a single

definition for ``authorized instructor'' as explained in the analysis

of Sec. 61.1(b)(2) below. The concept of supervised pilot in command

was created only to permit the logging of student solo time as pilot-

in-command time under Sec. 61.51. The proposed definition created

difficulty in determining when supervision was occurring, and has been

removed.

Section 61.1(b)(1) Aeronautical experience.

The FAA proposed a definition of aeronautical experience as 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.

Comments: Although pilot time in a flight simulator or flight

training device is addressed in certain definitions such as

``aeronautical experience,'' one commenter points out that there is no

specific definition to provide for training conducted in a simulator.

FAA Response: The intent of the section is to ensure more

consistent use of terms throughout part 61. The FAA finds that the

commenter's statement is outside the scope of Notice No. 95-11, and

that the definition of ``aeronautical experience'' clarifies the rule

and should be adopted as proposed.

Section 61.1(b)(2) Authorized instructor.

The FAA proposed definitions for ``authorized flight instructor''

and ``authorized ground instructor'' in Secs. 61.1a (c) and (d).

Comments: ATA expresses concern regarding the use of the term

``authorized flight instructor'' in proposed Sec. 61.1a(d). ATA notes

the use of the term ``authorized instructor'' in Sec. 61.157(f) and

states that the term was not intended by the FAA to mean the holder of

a flight instructor certificate. Rather, ATA states that the FAA meant

that the term ``authorized instructor'' could also include an

instructor qualified under the air carrier regulations of part 121.

AOPA strongly opposes the proposed change from the term

``certificated flight instructor'' to ``authorized flight instructor.''

AOPA notes that references are made to CFIs in thousands of

publications, videos, books, and government manuals. The commenter also

is concerned that the proposed terminology could have a deleterious

effect on the liability exposure of flight instructors. In addition,

AOPA comments that it appears that the FAA is relinquishing its role as

the sole certificator of airmen, and that FAA counsel is attempting to

circumvent the established procedures for certificate enforcement

actions since there are no formal legal procedures in place for the

removal of an authorization. The commenter believes that this could

compromise a flight instructor in any certificate or civil action. The

commenter contends that no justification is presented for this proposed

change.

NAFI also opposes this proposed change in terminology. Consistent

with AOPA's comment, NAFI states that the term ``CFI'' would have to be

replaced in every reference at considerable expense to government and

industry.

Six other individual commenters oppose the proposed definition of

``authorized flight instructor.'' Some of the commenters state there is

no reason to change from the commonly used term ``certified

(certificated) flight instructor'' (CFI) to ``authorized flight

instructor,'' or ``AFI.'' One commenter adds that the ``marginal

clarification'' intended by the new term does not warrant the confusion

likely to result among students as well as the need to revise books,

videos, and other training materials.

FAA Response: The FAA has removed the definitions of ``authorized

flight instructor'' and ``authorized ground instructor'' and replaced

them with a new term, ``authorized instructor,'' which encompasses

commercial lighter-than-air pilots and ATP certificate holders who may

also provide training. Additionally, the FAA has modified the

definition to include persons providing training under part 142. With

respect to the commenters' fear that the term ``certificated flight

instructor'' will no longer be valid due to the change, the FAA

stresses that flight and ground instructors are still certificated

under part 61, and therefore will remain certificated instructors.

Section 61.1(b)(3) Cross-country time.

In Notice No. 95-11, cross-country time was defined for three

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

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

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

for military pilots.

Comments: NAFI indicates approval for the clarification of this

term. HAI recommends removing the requirement for cross-country flight

time to require landing by changing proposed Sec. 61.1a(e)(1)(ii)

``landing point'' to ``destination.'' HAI's justification for the

modification is that many CFIs, CFIIs, and aerial photographers may fly

long distances without landing at any point other than their point of

departure. The commenter states that its proposed change will permit

these pilots to log cross-country time. The commenter also points out

that the proposed 50-nautical mile requirement for all cross-country

flights is inconsistent with the 25-nautical mile cross-country flight

requirement for pilots seeking certification in helicopters.

AOPA supports clarifying what constitutes cross-country flight time

based upon the certificate held by a pilot. The commenter, however,

opposes the cross-country definition because it relies upon the

undefined term ``actual flight.'' AOPA is concerned

[[Page 16235]]

that the definition effectively excludes taxi, run-up, takeoff, and

landing roll as loggable flight time. According to AOPA, this

unloggable time could be significant if full-stop landings are required

for currency training.

While one individual commenter expresses agreement with the

proposed definition, others propose changes that would make the

definition more appropriate for different categories of aircraft and

types of operations. Commenters state that the definition is not

appropriate for balloon operations, which do not necessarily use

airports and in which a 50-nautical mile flight may be unusually far,

or for glider operations, which may cover long distances but begin and

end at the same site. One commenter suggests treating ``mission

pilots,'' such as those conducting fish-spotting and fire and pipeline

patrol operations, the same as military pilots. To account for such

cases, one commenter suggests provisions under which cross-country

flight would include any flight that departs an airport and its traffic

pattern and lands at another location, or, for a flight that does begin

and end at the same location, would include any flight of more than 50

nautical miles in powered aircraft, or 25 nautical miles in nonpowered

aircraft. That commenter states the proposal would apply to flights in

which dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic, or radio navigation aids

were used.

FAA Response: In response to the commenters' concerns, the FAA has

modified the definition of ``cross-country time'' to remove any

distinction between flight and actual flight. The definition was also

modified to permit flights of 25 nautical miles for a private

rotorcraft rating to be considered as cross-country flights. The

definition was modified to include references to future navigation

systems rather than restricting cross-country navigation to present

methods and systems. In response to comments received, the FAA modified

the definition of cross-country time to permit a commercial pilot,

airline transport pilot, or military pilot qualified for a commercial

pilot rating to log cross-country time without requiring a landing at a

point 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure.

Section 61.1(b)(4) Examiner.

In Notice No. 95-11, the term referred to persons authorized to

conduct practical tests or knowledge tests under part 61. However, the

FAA has modified the definition in the final rule to include persons

who conduct pilot proficiency tests.

Section 61.1(b)(5) Flight simulator.

The FAA has modified and combined the current definitions of

``flight simulator, airplane'' and ``flight simulator, helicopter,'' as

adopted in Amendment No. 61-100, to include all categories of aircraft.

Section 61.1(b)(6) Flight training.

In Notice No. 95-11, the term ``flight training'' was defined as

training other than ground training received from an authorized flight

instructor in actual flight in an aircraft.

Comments: For the same reasons expressed in its comment on the use

of the term ``actual flight'' in defining cross-country time, AOPA

opposes the use of the term in the definition of ``flight training.''

SSA does not object to this definition, but notes that it narrows the

``perception of dual time,'' which could include simulators.

FAA Response: The intent of the section is to ensure more

consistent use of terms throughout part 61. The FAA believes the

definition achieves this goal and should be adopted as proposed with a

modification to remove any distinction between flight and actual flight

in response to commenters' concerns.

Section 61.1(b)(7) Flight training device.

The FAA has modified the current definition of ``flight training

device,'' as set forth in Amendment No. 61-100, to include all

categories of aircraft.

Section 61.1(b)(8) Ground training.

In Notice No. 95-11, the term ``ground training'' is defined as

training other than flight training received from either an authorized

ground instructor or an authorized flight instructor. However, the FAA

has modified the definition in the final rule to replace the phrase

``authorized ground or flight instructor'' with the term ``authorized

instructor.'' This change was discussed in the analysis of

Sec. 61.1(b)(2). Except for this change, the definition is adopted as

proposed. No substantive comments were received.

Section 61.1(b)(9) Instrument approach.

Notice No. 95-11 described the instrument approach as an approach

procedure, defined in 14 CFR part 97, conducted to an established

minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH) or, if

necessary, to a higher altitude selected by the air traffic control

(ATC) facility with jurisdiction over that airspace for safety reasons.

Comments: AOPA believes that there is a potential conflict between

the proposed definition of ``instrument approach'' in Sec. 61.1a(i) and

the instrument proficiency requirements of Sec. 61.57(c)(1)(i) because

the definition requires that the approach be flown to MDA or DH. The

commenter also is concerned that under the proposed definition, an

approach not flown to MDA or DH could be logged only if ATC considered

it unsafe. AOPA believes that a pilot is in a better position to

determine safety issues. AOPA also points out that the majority of

training flights are conducted in VFR conditions with the aid of air

traffic services. According to the commenter, the proposal would pose

an economic and safety threat by forcing pilots to continue an approach

under unsafe conditions in order to log it and avoid the cost of

repeating the approach, or to terminate the approach for safety reasons

before it could be logged.

NAFI also opposes the wording in this provision, because a typical

descent in which the aircraft breaks out of the overcast before

reaching MDA would not be loggable.

Some individual commenters also state that this definition may be

overly restrictive, because practice approaches often are conducted

under VFR and without involvement of ATC. These commenters state that

the pilot, safety pilot, or flight instructor may determine the need to

terminate the approach prior to reaching MDA or DH for safety reasons.

Another commenter states that it is beneficial for beginning instrument

students to complete some approaches visually so they better understand

issues related to transitioning from instruments to visual flight. That

commenter also indicates that in approaches conducted under IFR, pilots

may sight the airport or runway prior to reaching MDA or DH if weather

conditions permit. One commenter suggests revising the definition to

permit the pilot to terminate the approach prior to DH or MDA for

safety reasons. Another commenter proposes to define ``instrument

approach'' as `` * * * an approach procedure defined in part 97 and

conducted in accordance with that procedure or as directed by ATC to a

point beyond an initial approach fix defined for that procedure.'' The

commenter explains that this definition would allow for logging

instrument approaches that require some portion of the published

approach procedure to be followed in order for the pilot to establish

visual references to the runway. The commenter suggests that for

specific purposes such as training or currency requirements, the term

could refer to descent to the MDA or DH, or to the

[[Page 16236]]

missed approach point, which may occur after the MDA is reached.

FAA Response: To address the public's concerns, the definition of

``instrument approach'' was modified to remove any requirement that the

approach be conducted to DH, MDA, or to a higher altitude selected by

ATC in order to be considered an instrument approach.

Section 61.1(b)(10) Instrument training.

Notice No. 95-11 defines instrument training as that time in which

instrument training is received from an authorized flight instructor

under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

Comments: One commenter expresses concern regarding the lack of a

sufficient provision for training conducted in simulators, and suggests

a definition for ``simulated flight'' and for ``instrument training,''

which would encompass training received in a flight simulator or flight

training device. Another commenter states that the proposed definition

does not refer to authorized ground instructors.

FAA Response: Training received in flight simulators is outside the

scope of the rule, and is addressed in another rulemaking project

(Notice No. 92-10), as explained in section II. The term ``authorized

instructor'' is used as explained in the analysis of Sec. 61.1(b)(2),

and the definition of instrument training has been modified to reflect

this change.

Section 61.1(b)(11) Knowledge test.

The term ``knowledge test'' replaces ``written test,'' because the

FAA believes the term ``knowledge test'' is a more inclusive term that

incorporates the use of computer testing on the aeronautical knowledge

areas in part 61. No substantive comments were received, and the

definition is adopted as proposed.

Section 61.1(b)(12) Pilot time.

The FAA inadvertently failed to discuss this proposed definition in

the NPRM preamble. However, in response to requests for legal

interpretations as to what constitutes ``pilot time,'' the FAA included

the definition of ``pilot time'' in the proposed rule.

Comments: A commenter expresses strong opposition to the inclusion

of training given in an approved flight simulator or approved flight

training device in the proposed definition of ``pilot time.''

FAA Response: Since the early 1980's, the FAA has recognized the

importance of flight simulators and flight training devices, and has

issued over 30 exemptions to provide for the use of simulators and

flight training devices. Therefore, the final rule reflects established

FAA policy.

Section 61.1(b)(13) Practical test.

The proposed definition included both oral and flight testing or

testing in an approved flight simulator or flight training device on

the areas of operation for an airman certificate, rating, or

authorization. The definition is changed in the final rule to remove

the reference to ``actual flight.'' Except for this change, the

definition is adopted as proposed. No substantive comments were

received.

Section 61.1(b)(14) Set of aircraft.

The FAA has modified the current definition originally set forth in

Amendment No. 61-100 from ``set of airplanes or rotorcraft'' to ``set

of aircraft'' to include all categories of aircraft.

Section 61.1(b)(15) Training time.

Notice No. 95-11 discussed ``training time'' as training received

in actual flight from an authorized flight instructor, on the ground

from an authorized ground or flight instructor, or in a flight

simulator or flight training device from an authorized ground or flight

instructor.

Comments: AOPA opposes the use of the term ``actual flight'' in the

definition of ``training time'' because it effectively excludes taxi,

run-up, takeoff, and landing roll as loggable flight time. According to

AOPA, this unloggable time could be significant if full-stop landings

are required for currency training.

FAA Response: The definition of ``training time'' was modified in

the final rule to remove any distinction between flight and actual

flight. Taxi and run-up time performed for the purpose of flight can be

logged as training time.

Section 61.2 Certification of foreign pilots, flight instructors, and

ground instructors.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. 61.2 to

include a provision for ground instructor certificates. As previously

noted, Amendment No. 61-100 redesignated this section as current

Sec. 61.3. The FAA also proposed to permit a person who is not a

citizen of the United States or a resident alien of the United States

to: (1) complete a knowledge or practical test outside the United

States; (2) be issued an additional category, class, instrument, or

type rating, as applicable on a U.S. pilot certificate; and (3) be

issued an additional renewal, or reinstatement of a category, class, or

instrument rating for a U.S. flight instructor or ground instructor

certificate.

Comments: ALPA expresses concern over proposed Sec. 61.2, which,

the commenter states, makes it easier for a person who is neither a

U.S. citizen nor a resident alien to obtain a U.S. pilot certificate.

ALPA urges further amendment of this regulation as follows: ``A

certificate issued under this subsection may not permit the holder to

serve as a required crewmember on an aircraft in the commercial

operations of a U.S. carrier.'' ALPA cites ``the need to protect

quality piloting jobs for U.S. citizens and resident aliens.''

According to ALPA, future growth in U.S. air carrier operations will be

on international routes, and there are indications that U.S. carriers

are considering hiring noncitizen, nonresident aliens as flight crew

for these operations.

AOPA opposes the wording of proposed Sec. 61.2 because it appears

that the current regulation has been changed to the detriment of

foreign pilots seeking U.S. certification. According to AOPA, the

proposed language places a different emphasis on the word ``need,''

implying that the discretion to determine whether a pilot really

``needs'' a certificate is left to the Administrator. The commenter

recommends retaining the original language. It is AOPA's position that,

instead of attempting to limit the issuance of U.S. pilot certificates

to foreign airmen, the FAA should aggressively pursue reciprocal rights

for U.S. certificated pilots in foreign countries because U.S.

certificates are not normally recognized as the equivalent of

certificates issued in other countries.

FAA Response: The FAA notes ALPA's concerns but does not find the

commenter's specific proposal to be within the scope of this

rulemaking. As explained in the preamble to Notice No. 95-11, the

existing provisions of Sec. 61.2 limit U.S. training and airplane

manufacturing companies from expanding their business into the

international aviation market. The proposed rule was written to address

this problem. With regard to AOPA's comment concerning the language of

the proposed rule, the FAA finds that the proposed rule does not differ

substantively in this regard from the existing rule. The rule is

adopted as proposed.

[[Page 16237]]

Section 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and

authorizations.

As previously noted, Amendment No. 61-100 redesignated this section

as current Sec. 61.5.

Section 61.3(a) Pilot certificate.

The FAA clarified the requirement in Sec. 61.3(a) that a pilot

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

the person exercises the privileges of the certificate.

Comments: ALPA supports the requirements of proposed Sec. 61.3(a)

on the possession of certificates.

HAI comments that while the loss of a pilot certificate during a

trip may be considered remote, it has occurred. The commenter contends

that because the loss of a certificate does not affect the safety of an

operation, a pilot should not be unduly penalized. HAI recommends

modifying Sec. 61.3(a) to provide an exception in the case of

operations under part 121 or part 135 where a procedure has been

approved for interim operations after the accidental loss of a pilot

certificate. HAI notes that while the conditions for granting an

approval for such a procedure for part 121 and 135 operators are beyond

the scope of Notice No. 95-11, the proposed exception can be

implemented immediately, and details associated with the procedures

could be included in an AC or in FAA handbook material, pending the

determination of the need to change part 121 or part 135.

EAA and NAFI oppose the proposal and contend that pilot records can

be obtained at any time through the use of computers and electronic

media. These commenters do not believe the proposal will enhance safety

and, instead, might expose pilots to inadvertent violations and

enforcement actions. EAA also states that under the proposal, pilots

who lose their certificates on a cross-country flight would be unable

to return home.

It is AOPA's position that, although proposed Sec. 61.3 is a slight

improvement over the existing regulation, the FAA should withdraw this

requirement entirely. AOPA recommends that the FAA qualify the language

in Sec. 61.3 concerning ``required crewmember'' to state that the

instructor may not act as a ``crewmember required under the aircraft's

type certificate'' without a valid medical certificate. AOPA believes

that this modification would permit a flight instructor to provide

instrument instruction and act as a safety pilot under the regulations

without a medical certificate.

One individual commenter agrees with the need for clarification,

but states that the proposal still is ambiguous. He states that

``physical possession'' should be defined in Sec. 61.1a or replaced

with ``a valid airman certificate in the aircraft and readily

accessible when exercising * * *''

FAA Response: The FAA is persuaded by the public comments that

contend the proposed section could create difficulties in certain

situations. As provided for in Sec. 61.29, the FAA will permit a pilot

to use a facsimile received from the FAA to satisfy the requirements of

Sec. 61.3(a). In response to AOPA's comment regarding instructors who

act as safety pilots not being required to have a medical certificate,

the FAA notes that Sec. 91.109 specifies that a safety pilot is

required to conduct simulated instrument flight, which makes the safety

pilot a required crewmember. Therefore, an instructor in such

situations would be required to hold a medical certificate. In

addition, AOPA requests that safety pilots operating under Sec. 91.109

be excepted from holding medical certificates. The FAA has decided not

to address this request here, as it is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking.

Section 61.3(b) Required pilot certificate for operating a foreign

registered aircraft.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed formatting and editorial

changes to this paragraph. The rule change addresses the pilot

certificate requirements for operating aircraft of foreign registry

within the United States, and is adopted as proposed. No substantive

comments were received.

Section 61.3(c) Medical certificate.

This section was clarified in Notice No. 95-11, and set forth the

requirements for persons to have their medical certificate in their

physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. It also

specifically identified when it is permitted for persons not to have

their medical certificate in their physical possession or readily

accessible in the aircraft.

Comments: HAI suggests modifying proposed Sec. 61.3(c)(1)(ii) to

cover the accidental loss of a medical certificate. Similarly, GAMA

suggests adding the language ``except for renewal or replacement'' to

proposed Sec. 61.3(c)(1)(ii).

Approximately 30 commenters address proposed medical certification

requirements from the point of view of glider operations, nearly all of

them in favor of Notice No. 95-11. Most commenters feel the proposal

confirms that medical certificate requirements would continue not to

apply to glider pilots, a policy they support. ASA, SSA, AOPA, and EAA

support retaining medical self-evaluation for glider pilots. ASA states

its opposition to the imposition of any standards for medical self-

evaluation, while SSA opposes the listing of disqualifying conditions.

AOPA states that by not including powered gliders in proposed

Sec. 61.3(c)(2)(i), the FAA will be revoking the currently held

privilege of operating powered gliders without a medical certificate.

AOPA is unaware of any documented problem with medical incapacitation-

related accidents for powered gliders that could justify implementation

of a new medical certificate requirement for this group of airmen. NAFI

also states that powered gliders should be included in this regulation.

FAA Response: The FAA has considered the public comments that

indicate the proposed section could create difficulties for certificate

holders who are awaiting the replacement of lost or destroyed

certificates. Therefore, the phrase ``or other documentation acceptable

to the Administrator'' has been added to the final rule. With regard to

AOPA's concern over medical certificate requirements for pilots flying

powered gliders, as explained in section IV,F, the FAA is not adopting

the proposed separation of the glider category into powered and

nonpowered classes.

However, for reasons discussed in section IV,A of this preamble,

the final rule includes medical certificate requirements for

recreational pilots, and student pilots seeking recreational pilot

certificates.

Section 61.3(d) Flight instructor certificate.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA clarified the requirement that a

flight instructor certificate must be in the person's ``personal

possession'' whenever the person exercises the privileges of the

certificate. This section also provided that a flight instructor

certificate is not necessary if: (1) The training is given in

accordance with a part 121 or part 135 air carrier approved training

program; (2) the training is given by the holder of an ATP certificate

under Sec. 61.169 of this part; and (3) the person receiving the

training and the person giving the training are employees of that air

carrier. This proposal also provided that a flight instructor

certificate is not necessary if the training is conducted in accordance

with the provisions of Sec. 61.41.

Comments: GAMA and AOPA are concerned that the proposal would

present problems for flight instructors

[[Page 16238]]

participating in renewal programs that require instructors to turn in

their CFI certificate when they mail in their course documentation.

AOPA believes the proposed rule could ground these instructors while

they await their certificates.

ATA states that the language in the NPRM preamble regarding

proposed Sec. 61.3 implies that a flight instructor certificate is not

necessary if the training is in accordance with a part 121 air carrier

approved training program, and the persons receiving and giving the

training are employees of the air carrier. ATA notes that many part 121

air carriers provide training to other part 121 air carriers. The

commenter recommends modifying the regulation to exclude the language

``person receiving the training'' and include a statement that would

allow a part 121 air carrier with an approved training program to train

another part 121 air carrier's pilots.

FAA Response: Based on public comments that argue the proposed

section could create difficulties in situations where flight instructor

certificates are mailed in upon completion of a renewal course, the FAA

has decided to add the phrase ``or other documentation acceptable to

the Administrator,'' which would permit a flight instructor to use a

copy of a graduation certificate from a CFI refresher course and a copy

of the completed application for renewal to meet this requirement. The

FAA also agrees with ATA's comment, because the practice that ATA

refers to is currently permitted, and the FAA did not intend to revoke

it. Therefore, the FAA has changed the final rule to permit an air

carrier conducting operations under part 121 or 135 with an approved

training program to train another air carrier's pilots. Additionally,

the FAA has added provisions stating that a flight instructor

certificate is not necessary for certain training given by the holder

of a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air rating, a

person qualified in accordance with subpart C of part 142, a person as

provided in Sec. 61.41 of this part, and the holder of a ground

instructor certificate.

Section 61.3(e) Instrument rating.

This section replaced the references to the instrument rating

needed for each class of aircraft category with the phrase

``appropriate aircraft category, class, type, and instrument rating.''

Under the proposed rule change that established an instrument rating

for airships, the existing requirement for a pilot to hold a commercial

certificate with a lighter-than-air category and airship class rating

to operate an airship under IFR or IMC was deleted. The proposal also

required pilots of gliders to hold an instrument rating for a single-

engine airplane. The FAA has decided to eliminate the proposed airship

instrument rating proposed in Sec. 61.3(k)(4). Instead, the FAA is

retaining the current requirements for pilots to possess a lighter-

than-air commercial pilot certificate with an airship rating to be

permitted to fly airships under IFR, because the FAA concluded that

operational requirements and accident/incident data did not establish a

sufficient safety justification for increased regulatory or economic

burdens resulting from the proposed change to the rule. This section is

changed to reflect the elimination of the proposed separation of

single- and multiengine instrument ratings, as well as the elimination

of the powered glider class rating, as explained in section IV,D and

section IV,F, respectively.

Section 61.3(f) Category II pilot authorization.

The proposed rule contained only editorial and format changes, and

is adopted as proposed.

Section 61.3(g) Category III pilot authorization.

The provisions set forth in current Sec. 61.5(i) as adopted in

Amendment No. 61-100 have been retained with only minor editorial and

format changes.

Section 61.3(h) Category A aircraft pilot authorization.

The proposed rule contained only editorial and format changes, and

is adopted as proposed.

Section 61.3(i) Ground instructor certificate.

The FAA proposed to include the certification of ground instructor

certificates and ratings in part 61, and replaced the phrase ``personal

possession'' with ``physical possession, or immediately accessible when

exercising the privileges'' of the ground instructor certificate.

Except for a minor modification to clarify that a ground instructor can

only provide endorsements for a knowledge test, the final rule is

adopted as proposed.

Section 61.3(j) Age limitation.

Notice No. 95-11 proposed to align the age 60 rule for pilots with

the requirements of part 121 for all U.S. and foreign pilots who are

employed by foreign carriers that operate U.S.-registered civil

aircraft. Section 121.383(c) provides that no certificate holder may

use the services of, and no person may serve as, a pilot under part 121

if that person has reached his or her 60th birthday. That section,

however, applies only to pilots serving with U.S. air carriers

certificated under part 121. There are some U.S.-registered aircraft

operated by non-U.S. air carriers. Under Annex 1 to the Convention on

International Civil Aviation, the pilots of these aircraft must hold

U.S. pilot certificates or a U.S. validation of their foreign pilot

license. The special purpose pilot authorization under Sec. 61.77

provides for validation of a foreign license and applies an age 60

limitation similar to that in part 121. However, there has not been an

age 60 rule applied to the holders of regular U.S. pilot certificates

while operating U.S.-registered aircraft for non-U.S. air carriers.

This rule provides such a limitation.

In operations specifications issued under part 129, the FAA does

require that foreign air carriers under part 129 apply to their pilots

in command the age 60 limitation in Annex 1. This applies only to

operations in the United States, however, and does not apply to seconds

in command. It also applies to all airplanes operated by the foreign

air carrier, not just U.S.-registered airplanes. Section 61.3(j)

applies to all pilots, applies to certain operations both inside and

outside the United States, and applies only to the operation of U.S.-

registered airplanes.

Section 61.3(j) proposed to apply the age 60 rule to specific

operations, including any scheduled international air services,

nonscheduled international air transportation, or common carriage

operations for compensation or hire in civil airplanes having a (1)

passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats, excluding any

required crewmember seat, or (2) payload capacity of more than 7,500

pounds. This was arrived at by merging the operations covered at that

time by the part 121 age 60 rule, and those operations covered by the

Annex 1 age 60 standard. Part 121 included scheduled and nonscheduled

operations of civil airplanes having a passenger seating configuration

of more than 30 seats, excluding any required crewmember seat, and all-

cargo operations with airplanes having a payload capacity of more than

7,500 pounds. The Annex 1 standard covers aircraft engaged in scheduled

international air services and nonscheduled international air

transportation operations for remuneration or hire.

However, since Notice No. 95-11, the applicability of part 121 has

been amended to include certain commuter

[[Page 16239]]

airplanes (60 FR 65832; December 20, 1995.) In order to align

Sec. 61.3(j) with part 121, as was proposed, this final rule applies to

the following:

(i) Scheduled international air services carrying passengers in

turbojet-powered airplanes;

(ii) Scheduled international air services carrying passengers in

airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 9

passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat;

(iii) Nonscheduled international air transportation for

compensation or hire in airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration

of more than 30 passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat; or

(iv) Scheduled international air services, or nonscheduled

international air transportation for compensation or hire, in airplanes

having a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.

``International air service'' is defined as in Article 96 of the

Convention of International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) as

scheduled air service performed in airplanes for the public transport

of passengers, mail, or cargo in which the service passes through the

air space over the territory of more than one country. ``International

air transportation'' is defined as air transportation performed in

airplanes for the public transport of passengers, mail, or cargo in

which the service passes through the air space over the territory of

more than one country.

In the part 121 amendment, the FAA delayed the compliance date for

pilots on operations that were not subject to an age limitation in the

past but now are subject to the age 60 rule (see 60 FR 65843, as

amended, 61 FR 2608; January 26, 1996). Because Sec. 61.3(j) is a new

age limitation, and does not just add additional operations to an

existing age limit, the FAA is applying the same delayed implementation

dates to all operations. However, until December 20, 1999, a person may

serve as a pilot in operations covered by this paragraph after that

person has reached his or her 60th birthday, if, on March 20, 1997,

that person was employed as a pilot in operations covered by this

paragraph.

While Notice No. 95-11 proposed to align the age 60 limitation in

Sec. 61.3(j) with that in part 121, at that time the changes to part

121 had not been made final, and Notice No. 95-11 did not specifically

include the new part 121 airplanes. Accordingly, the FAA invites

comments on the inclusion of additional airplane operations under

Sec. 61.3(j).

Comments: Five comments were received. One commenter supports

clarifying the age 60 rule. Another commenter objects that the age 60

rule is an operational rule and should not appear in part 61 because it

does not constitute a general aviation rule. Two commenters state that

they believe the safety benefits of an age 60 limitation is not

established, and three commenters note that the age 60 rule has been

challenged in court.

FAA Response: The FAA has treated the age 60 rule in the past as

both an operational rule (Sec. 121.383(c)) and a certification rule

(Sec. 61.77). Annex 1 places the limitation in its certification

standards. Part 61 contains not only general aviation rules, but also

rules that apply to airline transport pilots and commercial pilots. The

FAA has decided to include the age limitation in Sec. 61.3(j) as a

convenient location where affected persons may easily find it.

Recently the FAA reconsidered the age 60 rule and decided not to

propose to change it (60 FR 65977; December 20, 1995). There is no

reason to reexamine that decision at this time. While a petition for

review of that decision has been filed in the United States Court of

Appeals, there is no need to further delay implementation of age

limitations.

Section 61.3(k) Special purpose pilot authorization.

The proposed rule required pilots who hold a special purpose pilot

authorization issued in accordance with Sec. 61.77 to have that

authorization in their possession in the aircraft when exercising the

privileges of that authorization. The rule is adopted as proposed. No

substantive comments were received.

Section 61.3(l) Inspection of certificate.

This section, as proposed, permitted certain exceptions during the

proposed 2-year transition period for the implementation of flight

instructor certificates in the lighter-than-air category. Because those

ratings have not been adopted in the final rule, proposed paragraph (k)

has been withdrawn. Proposed paragraph (l) is adopted as proposed. No

substantive comments were received.

Section 61.4 Approval of simulators and flight training devices.

Although this section was not proposed in Notice No. 95-11, it was

set forth in Amendment No. 61-100. It is modified to refer to the

approval of flight simulators and flight training devices. The current

section has been revised to provide that any device used for flight

training, testing, or checking that has been found to be acceptable to

or approved by the Administrator prior to August 1, 1996, is considered

to be a flight training device, provided it can be shown to function as

originally designed and is used for the same purpose for which it was

originally accepted or approved. The FAA notes that only devices that

were accepted in accordance with AC No. 61-66, ``Annual Pilot in

Command Proficiency Checks,'' may be used to satisfy the requirements

of Sec. 61.56. All other devices may be used only to the extent to

which they had received acceptance or approval prior to August 1, 1996.

This final rule also includes a provision stating that the

Administrator may approve devices other than flight simulators or

flight training devices for specific purposes.

Section 61.5 Certificates and ratings issued under this part.

The FAA proposed significant changes to this section. The FAA has

decided to withdraw the conversion provisions proposed in paragraphs

(e) through (h) from the final rule because the ratings proposed in

those paragraphs were not adopted.

Section 61.5(a)

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to include the ground

instructor certificate in part 61. The specific provisions regulating

the ground instructor certificates are discussed in the section-by-

section analysis of Secs. 61.211-61.217.

Section 61.5(b)

Section 61.5(b) proposed to establish a powered-lift category

rating; an instrument rating for powered-lifts, nonpowered, and powered

class ratings under the glider category; separate instrument ratings

for single-engine and multiengine airplanes; and an instrument rating

for airships. As discussed in section IV,D and section IV,F, the

proposals for a powered-lift category rating and an instrument rating

for powered-lift are adopted. As previously discussed in section IV,F,

the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposals for separate ratings

under the glider category, separate instrument ratings for single-

engine and multiengine airplanes, and an instrument rating for

airships.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to delete from this paragraph

the word ``small'' in the reference to turbojet airplanes in the

paragraph that applies to aircraft type ratings. The FAA also proposed

to eliminate the reference to AC No. 61-1, ``Aircraft Type Ratings.''

The reference is obsolete because the AC has been revised. The list of

type ratings is incorporated into AC No. 61-89D, ``Pilot Certificates:

[[Page 16240]]

Aircraft Type Ratings,'' which also consists of type-rating curricula.

The FAA is adopting the proposed changes in the final rule.

The FAA proposed to delete from this paragraph the specific

reference to type ratings in small helicopters for pilots with ATP

certificates. The FAA is adopting this change in the final rule.

Section 61.5(c)

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to establish the following

ratings for flight instructor certificates: a powered-lift category

rating, lighter-than-air category and class ratings, powered and

nonpowered glider class ratings, and instrument ratings for airship,

single-engine and multiengine airplanes, and powered-lift. For the

reasons discussed in section IV,C and section IV,F, the lighter-than-

air category and class ratings, and glider class ratings for the flight

instructor certificate are withdrawn. For the reasons delineated in

section IV,D, the separate instrument instructor ratings for airships

and single-engine and multiengine airplanes also are withdrawn. The

powered-lift category rating and instrument rating are adopted as

proposed. The powered-lift category proposal is discussed in section

IV,F.

Section 61.5(d)

Notice No. 95-11 revised ground instructor certificates to

distinguish ratings on the basis of aircraft category (airplane,

rotorcraft, glider, lighter-than-air, glider, and powered-lift).

Comments: AOPA opposes the change from the current ground

instructor certificates (basic, advanced, and instrument) to the

proposed ratings.

FAA Response: After further review, the FAA has decided to retain

the current ground instructor ratings. The FAA found that operational

requirements and accident/incident data do not establish sufficient

safety justification for the increased regulatory and economic burden.

Section 61.7 Obsolete certificates and ratings.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. 61.7 by adding

a new paragraph (c) that would list five certificates and ratings that

were proposed to be eliminated. However, the FAA has decided not to

adopt separate classes of airplane instrument ratings, separate the

glider category into a powered or nonpowered class rating, or establish

new ground instructor ratings, because there is insufficient safety

justification for the increased regulatory and economic burden. No

substantive comments were received regarding this section, and except

for the above changes, the final rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 61.9 [Reserved.]

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed that this section be titled

``Written syllabus for conducting training.'' The FAA also proposed to

require that training under part 61 for any airman certificate be

conducted according to a written syllabus. Under the proposal,

instructors were responsible for ensuring that the syllabus contained

all knowledge areas and areas of operation appropriate to the

certificate and rating sought, and that the student completed all

applicable lessons prior to receiving any endorsements. A copy of the

syllabus was required to be furnished to the student, and an itemized

written record of training also was required to be provided whenever a

student completed the curriculum or terminated training.

Comments: NAFI recognizes the benefits of a written syllabus, but

opposes the proposal because of the associated recordkeeping

requirements and enforcement potential. NAFI states that the

recordkeeping requirements are onerous, and the time limits for the

retention of these records are not specified. According to NAFI, the

proposal would make instructors liable for enforcement action and

litigation in the event a training syllabus is lost. NAFI believes that

the PTS is a sufficient guide to ensure coverage of training

requirements.

NATA states that the proposed written syllabus requirement is a

good concept, but the commenter also opposes the proposal because of

the recordkeeping requirements. NATA recommends that the references in

proposed Sec. 61.9(a) (1) and (2) to providing total training or lesson

time schedules to a student pilot be omitted in order to lessen the

pressures on students and instructors to complete training within a

time frame. To ensure the use of a written syllabus, NATA proposes that

student pilots be required to submit the written syllabus to the

designated examiner during the practical test.

AOPA agrees in principle that most flight training should be

organized into a format that ensures each student is taught the

necessary aeronautical skills. The commenter, however, opposes the

proposed written syllabus requirement and the associated recordkeeping

and transfer requirements. According to AOPA, the FAA does not provide

any justification for the burdens of the proposal. The commenter is

also concerned about the liability implications of proposed

Secs. 61.9(a)(1) and 61.9(c) for flight instructors. According to AOPA,

the proposals may create a de facto contractual relationship between

the instructor and the student to provide flight or ground instruction

in a specific amount of time. AOPA points out that each student is

different, and these differences may not be apparent at the beginning

of a syllabus curriculum. The commenter believes that it would be

better to provide the prospective student with a copy of the PTS for

the certificate or rating sought and to familiarize the student with

the standards to which he or she will be expected to perform.

AOPA also opposes the recordkeeping requirements of this provision.

The commenter states that proposed Sec. 61.9(f) creates strict

liability compliance on the part of the instructor by requiring the

instructor to provide the student with an itemized written record of

the training accomplished when the student decides to terminate

training. AOPA notes that the student is not obligated to give notice

of his or her decision to terminate training to the instructor. AOPA

believes that the current required logbook entries are sufficient

documentation and that no further regulation is necessary. According to

the commenter, the recordkeeping requirements also represent a

significant addition of time and costs to training without any increase

in safety.

HAI comments that the proposed written syllabus requirement is a

good concept, but that it will create difficulties for both flight

instructors and flight schools because of the training time constraints

and recordkeeping requirements, especially because there are many part-

time and occasional students with special requirements. HAI recommends

deleting any references to the instructor providing total training or

lesson time to a student pilot.

SSA opposes the proposed written syllabus requirement in its

current form. SSA contends that glider instruction is unique in that it

is virtually impossible to follow a written syllabus. Glider

instructors cannot predict the training time of each flight, the length

of total training time, the maneuvers and procedures that will maximize

each training session, or the knowledge areas that will be covered on

each flight because of weather constraints and scheduling realities.

SSA also states that glider school operators feel it is unreasonable to

present students with a complete package prior to beginning training

because many students do not progress past the first flight.

[[Page 16241]]

GAMA supports requiring flight instructors to use a written

syllabus for pilot training. GAMA comments that, while the

recordkeeping requirements may appear somewhat burdensome, the benefits

to safety outweigh the administrative burden. According to GAMA, a

written syllabus would improve communication between the student and

instructor, and it would contribute to a higher quality of training.

The commenter also believes that the syllabus could prove useful to

accident investigators and other safety personnel in understanding a

pilot's training background. GAMA notes, however, that the training

records should not be used for enforcement purposes.

Several individual commenters also cite concerns about burdensome

recordkeeping, and one states that the PTS are sufficient to follow.

One commenter suggests that the FAA publish an AC on the issue rather

than adopting a regulation. One commenter states that the proposed

requirement for the syllabus to contain planned training times for

lessons are impossible to determine for all students; another adds that

specifying planned training times could be misconstrued as a written

contract. Comments supporting the proposal state it would cut down on

unprepared instructors and would promote an organized, logical approach

toward meeting certification and rating requirements. One commenter

supports the proposal for use of a written syllabus, but opposes the

associated recordkeeping requirements as unnecessarily burdensome. On a

related issue, another commenter stated that the current requirement

for flight instructors to retain records for 3 years is unnecessary.

FAA Response: After further review of the proposal, the FAA has

concluded that operational requirements and the accident/incident data

do not establish a sufficient safety justification for the increased

regulatory and economic burden resulting from the proposed rule.

Therefore, the proposal has been withdrawn.

Section 61.11 Expired pilot certificates and reissuance.

Minor editorial and format changes were proposed for this section.

No substantive comments were received, and the final rule is adopted is

proposed.

Section 61.13 Issuance of airmen certificates, ratings, and

authorizations.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to replace the title of

Sec. 61.13, ``Application and qualification,'' with ``Awarding of

airman certificates, ratings, and authorizations,'' and to revise the

format of this section.

The significant proposed changes in this section were as follows:

(1) Replacement of the phrase ``flight proficiency requirements'' with

``approved areas of operation''; (2) deletion from this section of the

rule's provision that permits the use of aircraft for a practical test

that cannot perform all of the approved areas of operation for that

practical test because of limitations listed in that aircraft's type

certificate; and (3) clarification that a limitation placed on a

person's airman certificate may be removed if the pilot demonstrates to

an examiner satisfactory proficiency in the area of operation for which

the airman certificate and rating are sought.

For reasons of clarity, the final rule changes the proposed section

title word ``awarding'' to ``issuance''. Except for these and other

editing changes applicable to Category III operations and the use of

approved flight simulators and approved flight training devices, the

final rule is adopted as proposed. No substantive comments were

received.

Section 61.14 Refusal to submit to a drug test.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA inadvertently set forth the pre-March

1994 regulatory language contained in Sec. 61.14.

Comments: In its comments, AOPA opposes proposed Sec. 61.14(b)

because it seems to allow certificate action against any person who

refuses to take a drug or alcohol test, regardless of whether the

person is required under the rule to take a test. While AOPA believes

that the intent of this rule is obvious, it is uncomfortable with the

removal of the qualifying language and recommends retaining the current

language. NAFI also comments about this proposed section, and states

that courts have made determinations equating an adulterated test

sample with refusal to take a test. NAFI is concerned that, because

test samples might be adulterated in many ways other than by the person

taking the test, the wording of the regulation might place pilots at

risk of a violation and certificate revocation ``for reasons beyond

their control.''

FAA Response: As previously noted, no modifications were intended

for Sec. 61.14. The final rule sets forth the existing regulation in

its correct form.

Section 61.15 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.

No modifications were proposed for this section.

Section 61.16 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test

results.

In Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed an editorial change to

correct the reference to Sec. 91.11(c) in the existing rule to

Sec. 91.17(c). The final rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 61.17 Temporary certificate.

In the preamble to Notice No. 95-11, the FAA proposed to revise

this section to include the ground instructor certificate. Although the

actual revision to the rule language was omitted inadvertently from the

proposed rule, the final rule includes the appropriate references to

the ground instructor certificate. The proposed rule also made some

minor editorial changes. No substantive comments were received on this

proposal, and it is adopted as proposed.

Section 61.19 Duration of pilot and instructor certificates.

In Notice No. 95-11, the significant proposed changes in this

section were: a change in the title of proposed Sec. 61.19 from

``Duration of pilot and flight instructor certificates'' to ``Duration

of pilot and instructor certificates''; deletion of the existing rule's

language specifying that a flight instructor certificate is only

effective when accompanied by a medical certificate appropriate to the

privileges being exercised; inclusion of ground instructor certificates

under part 61; and the addition of the language ``or otherwise

terminated'' to the list of conditions under which a certificate may be

terminated.

Comments: AOPA supports the inclusion of ground instructor

certificates without a specific expiration date, but objects to, and

requests the deletion of, the language ``or otherwise terminated'' in

proposed Se

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.