By James E. Cooling
If you are a student pilot, there is something special that goes along with your enthusiasm for flying. Today, everyone in the aviation industry wants you to succeed with your flight training. You are the future certificated flight instructor (CFI), the future aircraft owner, the future professional pilot, the future FAA administrator. And you are the hope of keeping the United States the world leader in the aviation industry.
Now that's pressure. With the entire aviation industry pulling for you, all you have to do is relax, follow the rules, and accept the responsibility of flying safely. And if you do, you can achieve whatever aviation goals you have set for yourself.
One of your primary goals should be the special thrill that comes with earning your private pilot certificate — knowing that you've earned the privilege of carrying your first passengers.
A careful review of recent National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) decisions indicates, however, that there are a few student pilots who are either unaware that students are not permitted to carry passengers, or who imprudently decide to ignore the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) and risk carrying passengers before earning their private (or recreational) certificate.
FAR 61.89, General Limitations: Student Pilots, clearly states that students may not act as pilot-in-command (PIC) of an aircraft that is carrying a passenger. The student pilot certificate also states this in bold print. And the NTSB decisions interpreting the FARs repeatedly hold that a student pilot who acts as PIC and carries a passenger will have his or her certificate revoked because such an action is a serious violation.
A review of the NTSB cases involving students who carry passengers indicate that there are really four categories of violations:
This is sometimes difficult when the pilot denies being PIC in order to avoid a potential violation that occurred during the flight. In at least one case, the student pilot was charged with carrying a passenger because he did not have a clear understanding with the other pilot before the flight as to who was to be the pilot in command.
There are several recent NTSB cases involving students that further illustrate how the FAA interprets and Enforces FAR 61.89 with regard to carrying passengers.
In Administrator v. Brothers, 1992 W.L. 348125 (NTSB), a student pilot obtained his private certificate for fixed-wing aircraft and then decided to learn to fly helicopters. As a student pilot in helicopters, he was observed carrying a passenger.
The FAA sought to revoke his pilot's certificate. He argued to the NTSB judge that he was a very skilled fixed-wing pilot and a very skilled helicopter pilot, and the fact that he did not have a helicopter rating (rotary-wing) on his private certificate should not result in a violation against him.
The administrative law judge in this case stated: "The skill of the respondent in manipulating the helicopter is not an issue. The issue in front of me is whether or not he carried a passenger when he was not authorized to do so. Similarly, you may have a student pilot who is the greatest thing since Charles Lindbergh and with 25 hours of flight time and not a private pilot's license can fly circles around somebody who has 400-500 hours. It doesn't happen very often, but some people may be born naturals. That is not the issue. The operational ability, that is manipulating the controls, is not the issue. It is whether or not the respondent was properly authorized to conduct the operation which he conducted."
The judge found in this case that the respondent was a student for the purposes of helicopter operation, and his certificate was revoked.
In Administrator v. Bennett, 1991 W.L. 321294 (NTSB), a student was flying his Cessna 206 over New Mexico when his engine abruptly quit. The student made a forced landing in a mountain pass and did approximately $28,000 worth of damage to his airplane. The FAA learned he had his wife on board and sought to revoke his pilot's certificate.
Before any administrative action was taken, the student completed his flight training and earned his private certificate. He then argued to the FAA and NTSB that his sanction for carrying a passenger should be reduced because his insurance company was not going to pay for the damage to his airplane. The company would not pay because he was not covered while flying as a student pilot with a passenger. His other argument for sanction reduction was the fact that he had obtained a private certificate subsequent to the violation.
The NTSB entered a six-month suspension of his pilot's certificate instead of a revocation. This was consistent with the NTSB policy of reducing a revocation to a six-month suspension of a private certificate when a student pilot who carries passengers completes his or her training and obtains a private certificate subsequent to the violation.
In Jeffrey Dean Scrape, 1993 W.L. 317682 (NTSB), a student had been flying with a passenger on board his aircraft. The FAA gave him notice of the alleged violation within the six-month time period permitted by the stale-complaint rule. But the FAA didn't pursue the case until four years later.
The administrative law judge dismissed the complaint as a stale complaint because of the FAA's delay. The student then "pushed the envelope" and filed an application under the Equal Access to Justice Act, requesting that the FAA pay his attorneys' fees for defending the FAA complaint.
The NTSB on appeal found the administrator was substantially justified in bringing the complaint against the student. And no attorneys' fees would be granted because the facts indicated that the administrator's action in seeking sanctions against the student was reasonable.
Student pilots who expose themselves to the risk of revocation or suspension of their pilots' certificates do a disservice to themselves and to the aviation industry that wants to support them. Exceeding the rights and privileges of a student certificate by flying passengers is not only a violation, it goes against the safety interests of the regulations they are designed to ensure.
As far as the FAA is concerned, it shows lack of care, judgment, and responsibility required for the holder of any pilot's certificate and calls for mandatory revocation.
The message for all student pilots should be loud and clear: Your passengers must wait until you earn your private or recreational pilot's certificate.
James E. Cooling is an attorney with the Kansas City, Mo., firm of Cooling & Herbers, P.C. He is a certificated flight instructor and holds commercial, instrument, multiengine, and a Citation type rating. He practices primarily in the area of aviation law.