Medical self-certification hasn't made it … yet
Medical self-certification for recreational pilots did not make the final cut in the FAA's long-awaited rewrite of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 61, which was finally published on April 4.
The Part 61 rewrite process began in September 1987 with a regulatory review of FAR parts 61, 141, and 143. It was released as a 124-page notice of proposed rulemaking on August 11, 1995 (see " Bye-Bye, CFI?" October 1995 Pilot). The original deadline for submission of written comments to NPRM 95-11 was December 11, 1995, although that was later extended to February 12, 1996. AOPA's comments on the proposal reached 86 pages, the longest response to an FAA proposal in the association's history.
From February 12, 1996, until early April of this year, the FAA said little about Part 61. Speculation that the final rule might be released late last summer was proved wrong. The rule languished during much of that period at the U.S. Department of Transportation, where it was undergoing review. The rule was finally published on April 4, occupying 148 pages in the Federal Register.
AOPA was generally pleased with the final rule, acknowledging that it contained many positive points, but the association was particularly disappointed that DOT had eliminated the FAA's proposal to allow medical self-certification by recreational pilots. (More information on the association's reaction can be found in " AOPA Action," page 8.)
The FAA had proposed to allow operation of an aircraft by pilots without a medical certificate who hold recreational pilot certificates, student pilots seeking a recreational pilot certificate, and those higher-rated pilots (private, commercial, and airline transport pilots) who elect to exercise only recreational pilot privileges. Most of the comments on the proposal favored eliminating the third class medical certificate requirement for such pilots, although few of these comments contained supporting data or analysis, the FAA noted in the final rule. The Aerospace Medical Association and Civil Aviation Medical Association did raise safety concerns regarding the limitations of self-evaluation.
Some individuals commenting on the proposal said that 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. Others noted that medical self-evaluation — without any listings of conditions or constraints — has worked well for glider and balloon pilots for many years.
Nevertheless, the proposal apparently was in the original Part 61 final rule that the FAA sent to the Department of Transportation for review and approval, said Douglas C. Macnair, AOPA's director of aviation standards. "My understanding is that then-Secretary of Transportation Federico Pe-a's office kept requesting additional information on the subject and finally indicated to the FAA that it would not approve a final rule containing that provision." By this time the rule had languished for several months at DOT, Macnair said. The FAA withdrew the proposed change and rewrote that portion of the document, and it was eventually approved by DOT.
Despite the unfortunate turn of events, the FAA states in the preamble to the Part 61 final rule that it intends to conduct additional study on this proposal and may issue a separate rulemaking action in the future.
Following are some of the NPRM's proposals that have generated the most interest in the general aviation community, the FAA's reaction to comments filed by AOPA and others — as published in the final rule — and the agency's decision regarding the proposal. The regulatory changes become effective on August 4.
Recent instrument experience
The FAA proposed changes to the instrument recency of experience requirements (FAR 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 agency decided to withdraw the requirement for recovery from unusual attitudes and modify the requirement for intercepting and tracking VOR radials and NDB bearings. The final rule requires pilots to intercept and track "courses through the use of navigation systems." Tasks necessary to meet recent instrument experience requirements must be performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions in an aircraft of the appropriate category, in an approved flight simulator, or a flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category. The final rule does not include a minimum hour requirement to meet instrument currency.
Requirements for instrument ratings
The proposal would have eliminated the required minimum of 125 hours of total flight time, including 50 hours of cross-country pilot-in-command time.
The FAA 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 agency decided to retain the 50 hours of cross-country pilot-in-command time requirement.
Types of instrument ratings
Because current accident/incident data do not show any safety problems resulting from the existing rules, the FAA eliminated from the final rule a proposal that would have established additional instrument ratings for single-engine and multiengine airplanes. The agency also sought to establish single-engine and multiengine instrument ratings for flight instructors and proposed a conversion process for current airplane instrument ratings to the new system. Comments regarding the unintended negative effects that would result from the creation of multiengine and single-engine instrument and instrument instructor ratings — and the proposed method of converting current ratings — persuaded the FAA to reconsider.
The FAA also eliminated a proposal that would have required an instrument rating for airships, because accident/ incident data do not establish a sufficient safety justification for the increased regulatory and economic burden.
Recreational pilot 50-nm limitation
The FAA noted the overwhelming support for its proposal to eliminate the 50-nautical-mile distance restriction from the recreational pilot certificate. Under the new rule, recreational pilots wishing to travel farther than 50 nm must receive additional navigation training equivalent to that of a private pilot. The rule change has the potential to benefit general aviation by stimulating interest in recreational flying, encouraging recreational pilots to seek additional certificates and ratings, and promoting additional pilot training. Other recreational pilot restrictions continue to apply.
Private pilot aeronautical experience
In the final rule, the FAA made several changes to private pilot experience requirements. For an airplane-single engine rating, a private pilot applicant must have 10 hours of solo flight in a single-engine airplane, including 5 hours of solo cross-country flight; one solo flight must be of at least 150 nm total distance. Three hours of night flight training must include a cross-country night flight of more than 100 nm total distance. Three hours of instrument flight training is also required.
Takeoffs and landings
The FAA had sought to change the recency of experience requirements in FAR 61.57 to state that all landings, not just night landings, 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.
Many commenters indicated that there is no cost justification for mandated full-stop landings and that it will result in increased congestion at airports. After consideration of the comments, the FAA decided to withdraw both proposed requirements. However, the agency is retaining the current full-stop requirements for tailwheel aircraft, as well as for night landings.
Supervised PIC
A terminology change from "solo" to "supervised PIC" would have complicated training requirements, increased the cost of a commercial pilot certificate, and made it almost impossible to obtain a multiengine rating. The term supervised pilot in command was removed from the final rule, although the proposal's intent — which was to allow student pilots to log solo flight time as pilot-in-command time — was retained. A student pilot will be able to log pilot-in-command time when he is the sole occupant of the aircraft, has a current solo flight endorsement, and is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating.
Sharing of expenses
The FAA's original proposal would have allowed private and recreational pilots and their passengers to share only fuel, oil, and airport expenses, but not aircraft rental costs. In the final rule, the FAA said that in the NPRM, it had inadvertently omitted "aircraft rental fees" from the list of expenses that private and recreational pilots may share. Current FAA policy allows sharing of aircraft rental fees, and appropriate changes have been made in the final rule, the agency said. Only direct operating and rental expenses may be shared. To avoid a pilot's receiving compensation for a flight, indirect operating costs — such as maintenance expenses — cannot be shared.
English language requirements
In NPRM 95-11, the FAA proposed to delete exceptions to requirements that applicants 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 FAR 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 FAR 61.151.
The FAA acknowledged that there was an unintended effect in the proposed rule change that would have prevented deaf pilots, and pilots with other medical conditions who have a command of the English language, from meeting the eligibility requirements for a pilot certificate. The FAA has determined, however, that for safety concerns, operations in the national airspace system do require a basic command of the English language.
Therefore, as proposed, the FAA has removed the exceptions that permitted pilots to be certificated without a basic command of the English language. A provision has been added to the eligibility requirements for pilot certification to allow individuals who have a command of the English language — but who may not be able to meet the proposed requirements because of a medical condition — to continue to exercise the privileges of their certificates within the limitations that the FAA places on them.
Areas of operation
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 FARs. Specific tasks to be performed would be contained in the practical test standards (PTS), based on the areas of operation listed in the regulations.
The agency said that it was adopting this proposal in order to be more responsive to advances in training and technology and to accident and incident trends. Any future changes of the hour requirements for certification would need to be conducted by using a formal rulemaking process with its associated notice and comment procedures. The FAA's Flight Standard Service actively seeks comments from the public when revising the PTS and continuously accepts comments requesting changes for future PTS revisions.
Other significant changes
A deceptively simple word change in the NPRM redefining high performance aircraft from "more than 200 horsepower" to "200 horsepower or more" would have expanded by tens of thousands the number of aircraft requiring a special instructor endorsement. The current language will remain in effect.
The FAA's original proposal would have eliminated the currently required stall entry/recovery and minimum controllable airspeed demonstrations before a student pilot is allowed to solo. The new rule retains stall entry/recovery demonstrations but substitutes "slow flight" for the minimum controllable airspeed demonstration.
An item in the FAA's original proposal would have prohibited a CFI from logging pilot-in-command time for any instruction (such as type-specific training) that was not given towards completion of a certificate, rating, or Part 61 currency requirement. The change in regulations regarding flight instructor logging of PIC time was dropped.
Another proposal would have required written syllabi for all flight training. Not only would this have increased training costs, but it would have created possible liability if interpreted as a contractual relationship with students as to the pace and progress of their training. This proposal was removed.
CFIs and ground instructors also faced additional recordkeeping and retention requirements. The potentially costly proposal was deleted.
The original NPRM would have converted today's three ground instructor certificates (basic, advanced, and instrument) into nine category- and instrument-specific ground instructor ratings, with loss of privileges and certificates for the majority of today's ground instructors. This measure was eliminated.
Rules require careful examination
Further examination will be required before the full impact of all of Part 61's new rules can be determined. AOPA technical and legal staff members are still in the process of reviewing the new regulation line by line. Finding and correcting inadvertent oversights and omissions could take months, and the process of interpreting this new regulatory language will continue for years.
Any significant errors or changes in the regulation will be reported in Pilot and on AOPA's Web site (www.aopa.org). The full text of the Part 61 final rule, which includes a section-by-section summary of the changes, is available electronically from the Web site now. Printed copies of the final rule (docket number 25910) may be obtained from the FAA Office of Rulemaking, Attention: ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone 202/267-9680.
Related Articles
