08/11/95 60 FR 41160 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1, 61, 141, and 143 [Docket No. 25910; Notice No. 95-11] RIN: 2120-AE71 Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise the Federal Aviation Regulations that prescribe the certification and training requirements for pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors and the operation of pilot schools approved by the FAA. In order to be more compatible with the current operating environment and the evolving demands of the National Airspace System, the proposals are intended to update training, certification, and recency of experience requirements. The proposals respond to comments to the FAA from the public, internal FAA review, and comments from the International Civil Aviation Organization. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 11, 1995. ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposals may be delivered or mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 25910, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. All comments must be marked "Docket No. 25910." Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket, Room 915G, weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lynch, Certification Branch, AFS-840, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3844. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments as they desire. Comments relating to the potential economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impact of the proposals contained in this notice are also invited. The comments should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator before action is taken on the proposed amendments, and the proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments received as well as a report summarizing any substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the closing date for submitting comments. The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter submits with the comment a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: "Comments to Docket No. 25910." When the comment is received, the postcard will be dated, time stamped, and returned to the commenter. The FAA has proposed specific flight and ground time requirements in various sections of this NPRM. These specific time requirements may be modified in light of the comments received in response to this NPRM. Availability of the NPRM Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-220, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Requests should be identified by the NPRM number or docket number of this proposed rule. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future proposed rules should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. General Aviation Policy Statement On September 8, 1993, Administrator David R. Hinson issued a general aviation policy statement in which he recognized that the general aviation industry is a critically important part of the nation's economy and the national transportation system. Administrator Hinson stated the following: General aviation plays a crucial role in flight training for all segments of aviation and provides unique personal and recreational opportunities. It makes vital contributions to activities ranging from business aviation, to agricultural operations, to Warbird preservation, to glider and balloon flights. Accordingly, it is the policy of the FAA to foster and promote general aviation while continuing to improve its safety record. These goals are neither contradictory nor separable. They are best achieved by cooperating with the aviation community to define mutual concerns and joint efforts to accomplish objectives. We will strive to achieve the goals through voluntary compliance and methods designed to reduce the regulatory burden on general aviation. The FAA's general aviation programs will focus on: 1. Safety--To protect recent gains and aim for a new threshold. 2. FAA Services--To provide the general aviation community with responsive, customer-driven certification, air traffic, and other services. 3. Product Innovation and Competitiveness--To ensure the technological advancement of general aviation. 4. System Access and Capacity--To maximize general aviation's ability to operate in the National Airspace System. 5. Affordability--To promote economic and efficient general aviation operations, expand participation, and stimulate industry growth. Accordingly, this rulemaking project was and is designed to meet these general aviation goals and provide economic relief from unnecessary, burdensome regulations. Throughout the development of this notice, the FAA has been in partnership with the general aviation community in developing and revising the rules in parts 61, 141, and 143 to ensure aviation safety and yet delete unnecessary, burdensome rules. The FAA is committed to this partnership with our general aviation constituents, and will continue the partnership through the notice and final rule phases of this rulemaking action. Table of Contents for the Preamble A. Background 1. NPRM No. 92-10, Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking at Training Centers. 2. Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Petition 3. General Discussion of Principal Issues B. Part 61 Issues 1. Definition of Terms a. Aeronautical Experience b. Airman Certificate c. Authorized Ground Instructor d. Authorized Flight Instructor e. Cross-Country Time f. Examiner g. Flight Training h. Ground Training i. Instrument Approach j. Instrument Training k. Knowledge Test l. Practical Test m. Supervised Pilot-in-Command (PIC) Time n. Training time 2. Areas of Operation 3. New Aircraft Category, Classes a. Powered-Lift b. Glider Class Ratings 4. New Instrument Ratings a. Airship Instrument Rating b. Instrument ratings-airplanes c. Instrument rating-Powered-lift 5. Lighter-Than-Air Flight Instructor Certificate 6. Revision of Ground Instructor Certificates and Ratings; Inclusion in Part 61. 7. Eligibility and Tests 8. Training Requirements 9. Proficiency 10. Privileges and Limitations 11. Records 12. Recency of Experience 13. Conversion to New System of Ground Instructor Certificate 14. Medical Certificates 15. Required Pilot Possession of Pilot and Medical Certificates 16. Issuance of U.S. Pilot Certificates on the Basis of Foreign Pilot Licenses 17. Logging Flight Time 18. Recency of Experience Requirements 19. Instrument Currency 20. English Language Ability Requirements 21. Flight Training Given by a Flight Instructor Not Certificated by the FAA 22. Second-in-Command (SIC) Training and Recent Experience 23. Knowledge Tests 24. Standardized Syllabus 25. Training and Endorsements 26. Endorsement for Complex and High Performance Airplanes 27. Aircraft Type Specific Training 28. Human Factors 29. Aeronautical Decision Making and Judgment Training 30. Windshear Avoidance 31. Aeronautical Experience Requirements 32. Instrument Rating 33. Recreational Pilot Certificate 34. Preflight Planning 35. Limitations on Cross-Country Endorsements 36. Night Flight Training 37. Private Pilot Limitations 38. Glider Towing 39. Eligibility for Commercial Pilot Certificate 40. Use of Turbojet Airplanes for Commercial Pilot Certification 41. Commercial Pilot Experience--Cross Country Training Flight 42. ATP Requirements 43. Pilot in Command Hour Requirement for Initial Flight Instructor Applicants 44. Experience Required for Training Flight Instructor Candidates 45. Flight Instructor Renewal Requirements 46. Flight Instructor Duty Time Limitations 47. Flight Training from a Control Seat C. Part 141 Issues: 1. Approval of Training Courses That Permit Pilot Schools to Train to a Standard 2. Check Instructors 3. Quality of Training Requirements 4. Temporary Chief Instructor 5. Transfer Between Part 141 Schools 6. Maintenance Requirements 7. Ground School Instructor Requirements 8. Instructor Proficiency Requirements 9. Renewal of Certificate 10. Recordkeeping Requirements for Pilot Schools with Examining Authority 11. Reorganization of Requirements for Courses that are Approved Under Part 141 12. Appendix A--Recreational Pilot Certification Course 13. Appendix B--Private Pilot Certification Course 14. Appendix C--Instrument Rating Course 15. Appendix D--Commercial Pilot Certification Course 16. Appendix E--Airline Transport Pilot Certification Course 17. Appendix F--Flight Instructor Certification Course 18. Appendix G--Flight Instructor Instrument (Aircraft Category and Class) Certification Course 19. Appendix H--Ground Instructor Certification Course 20. Appendix I--Aircraft Category or Class Rating Course 21. Appendix J--Aircraft Type Rating Course, other than airline transport pilot 22. Appendix K--Special Preparation Courses 23. Appendix L--Pilot Ground School Course D. Section by section discussion of Part 1--Definitions and Abbreviations 1. Balloon 2. Flight Time 3. Pilot in command E. Section by section discussion of Part 61--Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors F. Section by section discussion of Part 141--Pilot Schools A. Background Since September of 1987, the FAA has been conducting a regulatory review of parts 61, 141, and 143 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). These regulations pertain to certification and training requirements for pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors and the operation of pilot schools that are approved by the FAA. This regulatory review is being undertaken in response to advancements in aviation technology, training, and changes in the National Airspace System (NAS) that have occurred since the last major revisions to these parts in the early 1970's. The FAA has received numerous petitions for exemption and letters from the public suggesting changes to the current regulations. To date, there have been 41 amendments and approximately 3,616 exemption actions to parts 61 and 141. Recommendations and comments from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the public, and the FAA have also demonstrated the need for the regulatory review. A major goal of the review is to identify differences between the rules and the level of training demanded of pilots in today's aviation environment. In support of this regulatory review, the FAA completed a historical review of parts 61, 141, and 143 in January 1988. During this review, the FAA also received input from pilot schools and college and university aviation departments operating under parts 61 and 141. Three major areas were identified during this review: first, issues of immediate concern recommended by the NTSB and public comments; second, the requirements for aircraft operations in today's environment; and finally, the requirements for pilots in the year 2010 and beyond. Accordingly, the regulatory review was divided into three phases corresponding to the needs identified above. The final rule for Phase 1, Amendment Nos. 61-90 and 141-4 (56 FR 11308; March 15, 1991; effective on April 15, 1991), contained the following: 1. New requirement to obtain training and a flight instructor endorsement to serve as pilot in command of a tailwheel airplane; 2. New requirement to obtain training and a flight instructor endorsement to serve as pilot in command of a pressurized airplane capable of high altitude flight above 25,000 MSL; 3. New requirement for an applicant to complete a training curricula and receive a flight instructor endorsement prior to qualifying in an airplane that requires a type rating; 4. New requirement to permit completion of a phase of the WINGS program as satisfactory completion of a biennial flight review (BFR); 5. New requirement for pilot applicants to receive ground training on stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques; 6. New requirement for pilot applicants to receive flight training on flights at slow airspeeds with realistic distractions and the recognition of and recovery from stalls; 7. New requirement for flight instructor applicants to receive and demonstrate actual spin training; 8. New requirement for flight instructor applicants to perform a spin demonstration on retests when the reason for the failure was due to deficiencies of knowledge or skill relating to stall awareness, spin entry, spins, or spin recovery techniques; 9. New requirement that FAA inspectors and designated pilot examiners may accept instructor endorsements for the spin demonstration on practical tests for flight instructor applicants; 10. New requirement in part 141 that a chief or assistant chief flight instructor only has to be available by telephone, radio, or other electronic means during the time that instruction is given for an approved course of training; 11. New requirement in part 141 for initial designation of assistant chief flight instructors that are one half the requirements of chief flight instructors; 12. New requirement to eliminate the 100-hour currency experience requirement in part 141 for chief flight instructors to obtain initial designation; and 13. New requirement to eliminate the 25 mile distance restriction for establishing satellite bases in part 141. This NPRM represents Phase 2 of the regulatory review. Phase 2 addresses issues affecting parts 1, 61, 141, and 143. Prior to drafting and publishing this NPRM, the FAA issued a notice of hearing (54 FR 22732; May 25, 1989) that announced 4 public hearings and outlined the general topics for this NPRM. Four public hearings were held before the drafting and publishing of this NPRM as part of Phase 2. The hearings were held in Washington, DC (September 12-13, 1989); Chicago, Illinois (September 19-20, 1989); Los Angeles, California (October 3-4, 1989); and Orlando, Florida (October 16-17, 1989). Phase 2 also involves a Pilot and Flight Instructor Job Task Analysis (JTA), completed on March 31, 1989, which consolidated the results of a study on areas of pilot knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes required in today's aviation environment. The JTA provided the framework for this phase of the regulatory review and provides information for use in training programs and practical test standards. A copy of the JTA is available for examination in Docket No. 25627 and for purchase on a diskette through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650. The cost of the diskette is $55 in the United States and the NTIS order number is PB89-167845CAU. Most of the JTA consisted of data, based on experts' opinions, used to quantify the relative importance of knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes. The JTA also included a panel that discussed current and future pilot training needs. A transcript of the panel's deliberations is contained in Docket No. 25627. The panel's objective was to project pilot training needs 3 to 10 years into the future. The panel discussed changing technology, airline pilot requirements, airspace, training, instructors, and aviation economics. In addition, on February 9 and 10, 1993, the FAA conducted information gathering meetings with a number of aviation organizations and schools on the comments received in Docket No. 25627. These meetings concerned issues raised during the public hearings that were held in Washington, DC (September 12-13, 1989); Chicago, Illinois (September 19-20, 1989); Los Angeles, California (October 3-4, 1989); and Orlando, Florida (October 16-17, 1989), and the information received during the JTA that was completed on March 31, 1989. Because so much time had passed since the time of the hearings, receipt of comments to the docket, and the JTA, the FAA decided to update its information. The invitees were selected as a result of their organizations' and schools' past involvement in this regulatory review. The FAA is committed to developing rules that are fair and reasonable, and yet maintain a high degree of pilot training and qualification. The following organizations and schools attended these meetings: General Aviation and Manufacturing Association (GAMA), National Air Transport Association (NATA), Jeppesen- Sanderson, National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), Balloon Federation of America (BFA), Farrington Aircraft, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), AOPA Safety Foundation, Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), Soaring Society of America (SSA), Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), Parks College of St. Louis, and American Flyers. There have been some preliminary discussions for conducting a Phase 3 of this regulatory review. However, no schedule has been established for Phase 3. If a Phase 3 is conducted, it would be a comprehensive, long-term effort to address pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor requirements for the year 2010 and beyond. 1. Notice No. 92-10, Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking at Training Centers On August 11, 1992, the FAA issued notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) No. 92-10, "Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking at Training Centers" (57 FR 35888-35938). Although the flight simulator NPRM contains several issues related to this NPRM, the FAA has tried to make these rulemaking projects separate and distinct from one another. Despite the efforts to coordinate these two rulemaking actions, some overlap still exists. However, if any discrepancies have occurred, the matter will be resolved in the final rule. 2. Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Petition On January 3, 1994, the FAA published, without comment or endorsement, a petition for rulemaking submitted by EAA (59 FR 31). In their petition, the EAA requested the following changes to the recreational pilot certificate: (1) Eliminating the requirement that a recreational pilot hold at least a 3rd-class medical certificate; (2) Requiring a recreational pilot to self certify that he or she has no known medical deficiency that would make him or her unable to fly; (3) Eliminating the 50 nautical mile limitation for those pilots who obtain additional training; (4) Permitting a pilot with a higher certificate or rating who no longer has a medical certificate, but who self certifies that he or she is physically fit to fly, to exercise the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate, subject to the limitations of the recreational pilot certificate; and (5) Eliminating the recreational pilot certificate limitations for cross country, night flight, and flight into airspace requiring communication with air traffic control for those pilots with higher certificates and ratings who no longer have medical certificates, but who self certify that they are physically fit to fly. The comment period for the EAA petition closed on March 4, 1994. There were over one thousand comments received. The majority of commenters voiced overwhelming support for the petition, but did not provide any data or analysis. Some commenters, including the Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA), opposed the EAA petition. CAMA expressed concern with the impact on public health and welfare of the proposed elimination of medical standards for pilots who exercise the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate. One specific concern of those commenters who opposed the EAA petition was the carrying of passengers by a pilot who does not hold a medical certificate. The FAA has reviewed all comments received in developing this rulemaking action. The vast majority of commenters responding to this petition were individual members of the aviation community and many were members of the EAA. In this notice, the FAA is proposing to permit most of what EAA has requested. The FAA is not proposing to eliminate the recreational pilot limitations for cross country, night flight, and flight into airspace requiring communication with air traffic control for those pilots with higher certificates and ratings who no longer have medical certificates, but who self certify that they are physically fit to fly. The FAA may reconsider this issue, however, based on comments received. 3. General Discussion of Principal Issues in This NPRM This NPRM incorporates many of the concepts developed through the public hearings, the JTA, and the public comments received in Docket Nos. 25627 and 25910. Docket No. 25627 was established to receive comments throughout the entire regulatory review and will remain open until the FAA publishes a notice of its closing. This docket facilitates the orderly flow of collecting comments, recommendations, and ideas from the public. Docket No. 25910 was established to receive specific comments from the public on NPRM No. 89-14, which was the Phase 1 proposal. The proposals in this NPRM cover a broad range of issues. The major proposals included in this NPRM are as follows: (1) Clarify and standardize terminology; (2) establish a new powered-lift category rating; (3) establish separate class ratings for nonpowered and powered gliders; (4) establish a flight instructor certificate in the lighter-than-air category; (5) establish instrument ratings for single-engine airplanes, multiengine airplanes, airships, and powered-lifts; (6) revise the recency of experience requirements; (7) revise recreational pilot certification and authorization requirements; (8) require human factors training for all certificates and ratings; (9) replace flight proficiency requirements for training and certification with more general approved areas of operation; (10) revise the training times for the aeronautical experience requirements to permit the student and the instructor to tailor the training to the individual student's needs; (11) remove and reserve part 143 and establish a new subpart I in part 61 for ground instructors; (12) require ground instructor certificates to be based on aircraft category; (13) require applicants for a ground instructor certificate to accomplish a practical test; (14) revise the certification and test courses in part 141 to accommodate all aircraft categories and new technology; (15) establish a check instructor position to perform student and instructor checks and tests at part 141 pilot schools; (16) delete exceptions that permit pilots to be certified without meeting the English language fluency requirements; (17) revise the medical eligibility requirements for applying for all certificate levels and ratings by only requiring applicants to hold a third class medical certificate; and (18) delete the requirement for recreational pilots to hold a medical certificate. Due to the length of this notice, the preamble addresses the proposed changes to parts 61, 141, and 143 in two major sections. First, a general subject discussion of major issues is presented. Second, proposed changes are discussed briefly in a section-by-section analysis. It should be noted that parts 61 and 141 are republished here in their entirety. All sections, except those specifically noted, include a modified format, standardized terminology, and the deletion of gender references. Several sections, which are noted in the section-by-section discussion contain no revisions or editorial changes. Three of these sections, Secs. 61.58, 61.63, and 61.67, have been proposed to be revised in NPRM No. 92-10, "Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking at Training Centers," (57 FR 35888-35938; August 11, 1992). In addition to proposed additions, deletions, and substantive changes to the regulations, the FAA seeks in this proposal to continue its policy of simplifying regulations through editorial style changes. Wherever possible, the rules are broken down into brief sentences and outline format. Therefore, some section numbering would change under this proposal. In addition, the FAA has proposed numerous non-substantive changes to the regulations, and where necessary has proposed numerous revisions involving clarity and conformity. B. Part 61 Issues 1. Definition of Terms The FAA proposes to establish a new Sec. 61.1a, "Clarification of Terms." The intent of the section is to ensure more consistent use of terms throughout the text under part 61. The terms to be clarified include: a. Aeronautical Experience This term means pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device for meeting the appropriate training and flight time for an airman certificate, rating, flight review, or recency of flight experience, of part 61. b. Airman Certificate This term describes a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate), flight instructor certificate, or a ground instructor certificate that is issued under part 61. This would not include other airmen as described in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, which also applies the term to repairmen, mechanics, aircraft dispatchers, parachute riggers, other flight crewmembers, and air traffic controllers. c. Authorized Ground Instructor This proposal includes a provision to incorporate part 143, Ground Instructors, into part 61. The term would describe a person who holds a current ground instructor certificate with ratings that apply to the training being given, and who is authorized by the Administrator to give that training. d. Authorized Flight Instructor This term would clarify that a flight instructor must hold a current flight instructor certificate with ratings that apply to the training being given, and be authorized by the Administrator to give that training. e. Cross-Country Time The FAA proposes to describe cross country time for three separate circumstances: (1) For persons who hold a private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate; (2) for persons applying for a private or commercial pilot certificate or instrument rating; and (3) for military pilots. These issues are addressed further in the discussion of logging of pilot time. f. Examiner The term would refer to persons authorized to conduct practical tests or knowledge tests under part 61. g. Flight Training The term would refer to training received from an authorized flight instructor in actual flight in an aircraft. h. Ground Training The term would refer to training other than flight training received from either an authorized ground instructor or an authorized flight instructor. i. Instrument Approach This term would define an instrument approach as an approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted to an established minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH), or if necessary, to a higher altitude selected for safety reasons by ATC. j. Instrument Training The term would refer to time in which instrument training is received from an authorized flight instructor under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. k. Knowledge Test The term "knowledge test" would replace "written test." The FAA believes the term "knowledge test" is a more inclusive term, referring to either tests administered with pencil and paper or by computer on the aeronautical knowledge areas in part 61. l. Practical Test The term "practical test" would include both oral and flight testing or testing in an approved flight simulator or flight training device on the approved areas of operation for an airman certificate, rating, or authorization. m. Supervised Pilot-in-Command (PIC) Time The term "supervised PIC time" would mean aeronautical experience flight time in an aircraft that applies to either a student pilot or pilot who is not rated in the aircraft, but is under the supervision and authorization to conduct the flight from an authorized flight instructor. The purpose for this proposal is to permit student pilots and pilots who are not rated in the aircraft, to log PIC time when the sole manipulator of the controls. This will be a change to the FAA's existing policy on who can log PIC time. In the past, the logging of PIC time in Sec. 61.51 required the person to be a rated pilot, the sole manipulator of the controls, and be rated in the aircraft. Furthermore, depending on the crew compliment specifications set forth in the aircraft's flight manual, the flight instructor may be onboard the aircraft in an assigned crewmember position. The flight instructor is expected to perform essential crew member functions, evaluate the person's ability to act as a PIC, and as always perform essential safety-related functions in the case of emergencies. n. Training Time A definition of the term "training time" would mean training received: (1) In actual flight from an authorized flight instructor; (2) on the ground from an authorized ground or flight instructor; or (3) in a flight simulator or flight training device from an authorized ground or flight instructor. 2. Areas of Operation The FAA proposes a significant change in the regulatory descriptions of the procedures and maneuvers required of applicants for the various pilot certificates and ratings. Under the proposed new concept, the FAR would specify general areas of operation to be covered in flight training and practical tests for pilot and flight instructor certificates and ratings and in training and testing for ground instructors. Many specific flight proficiency requirements currently in the FAR would be deleted. The specific tasks for the training and practical tests would be listed in the standards for each practical test for each certificate and rating. The purpose of this approach is to permit greater flexibility in updating the training and testing maneuvers and procedures required of pilot and flight instructor applicants. For example, under current Sec. 61.107 an applicant for a private pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating must receive training on "emergency operations, including simulated aircraft and equipment malfunctions." The proposed areas of operation for the same applicant would require training on "emergency operations;" however, the tasks for the required training and practical test for an airplane category and single-engine class rating would include a task for emergency approach and landing (simulated) and a task for system and equipment malfunctions. For convenience, the areas of operation for each category and, in some cases, for each class of aircraft under each certificate or rating would be listed separately. This would result in a certain amount of redundancy because many areas of operation would be common to more than one category and class of aircraft. However, the FAA proposes this method of listing areas of operation to avoid requiring users to consult more than one list to identify the areas pertinent to their individual situation. In conjunction with using general terms to refer to maneuvers, the term "slow flight" would be used in place of previously used terms such as "minimum controllable airspeed" and the more recent term, "flight at slow airspeeds with realistic distractions." The FAA is not proposing a change in the concept; the details of the maneuvers and procedures will continue to be established through the appropriate practical test standards. The use of areas of operation is consistent with public response to the issue addressed in the Notice of Hearings of whether the specific tasks or requirements in the Practical Test Standards (PTS) should be included in the FAR. The FAA believes the PTS should remain separate from the regulations to maintain the flexibility needed for revising and updating the PTS. Some commenters suggested listing specific areas of operation rather than specific pilot operations in the regulations regarding pilot operations. The use of areas of operation would permit the practical test requirements, and hence, specific training requirements, to keep pace with technological change. For example, the current rule lists pilot operation procedures for equipment that is no longer common and does not include procedures for newer equipment (e.g., Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS), LORAN-C). 3. New Aircraft Category, Classes This proposal would establish a new aircraft category for pilot certification--the powered-lift. The FAA also proposes to establish two aircraft classes within the glider category: powered glider and nonpowered glider. a. Powered-Lift The FAA anticipates that one of the most significant future developments in the NAS will be the introduction of a new category of aircraft, the powered- lift, into civil application. According to the FAA's Interim Airworthiness Criteria Powered-Lift Transport Category Aircraft (Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, July 1988), powered-lifts resemble airplanes and rotorcraft in many respects. The document addresses airworthiness standards for multiengine turbine transport category aircraft that use power for lift, propulsion, and control. Powered-lift aircraft have vertical take-off and landing and hovering capability like helicopters, but they also may fly at higher airspeeds like airplanes. The low airspeed capability may be provided by either aircraft configuration changes (tilt-wing, tilt-rotor, tilt-propeller), thrust vectoring, direct-lift engines, or other powered-lift concepts. Powered-lift aircraft will require a new set of pilot knowledge, skills, and abilities. Therefore, the FAA proposes to create a new powered-lift aircraft category rating in Sec. 61.5 for certification of private, commercial, and airline transport pilots, and for flight instructor and ground instructor certificates. The FAA also proposes to create a corresponding instrument rating for powered-lift aircraft. The FAA does not propose to extend recreational pilot certification in proposed subpart D to include the powered-lift category rating. The FAA has considered various approaches to pilot certification for powered-lift aircraft. For example, the FAA considered whether powered-lift should be a separate category, with or without class ratings, such as tilt- rotor, tilt-wing, ducted fan, and vectored thrust. Another approach considered was creating a powered-lift class rating within the rotorcraft category. The FAA also considered proposing to require a type rating for every make and model of powered-lift aircraft. Based on available information, the FAA has concluded that safety needs will be met by establishing a separate aircraft category only. Under proposed Sec. 61.31, type ratings would not be required for powered-lift aircraft except for large aircraft or as specified by the Administrator under aircraft type certificate procedures. The FAA has determined that requiring additional requirements beyond this type rating requirement at this time might discourage the development of smaller powered-lift aircraft intended for general aviation. Thus, it does not appear feasible to establish class ratings at this time. In general, the aeronautical experience hour-requirements for powered-lift category ratings would parallel those for airplanes and helicopters. For example, proposed Sec. 61.87, Solo flight requirements, would require powered-lift student pilots to meet the same requirements as both airplane and helicopter student pilots. Similar overlap would occur in the areas of operation for private and commercial pilot training and certification. Aeronautical knowledge requirements for commercial pilot certification would be the same as those for helicopters (a single set of aeronautical knowledge areas is proposed for all aircraft categories at the private pilot level). Areas of operation for the instrument rating under proposed Sec. 61.65 would be the same as for airplanes. b. Glider Class Ratings The FAA proposes to divide the glider category into two classes for pilot certificates and ratings: powered glider and nonpowered glider. The term "powered glider" includes self-launching sailplanes, powered sailplanes, motorized sailplanes, and motorgliders. Some of these aircraft are designed primarily for high performance and competitive flying; others are more suitable for training. The low power-to-weight ratio and relatively low wing loadings generally found in powered gliders produce performance characteristics that are similar to low-powered, light fixed-wing aircraft. Specific knowledge and skills are needed for the safe and efficient operation of these aircraft in the NAS. Powered gliders may be flown long distances and through complicated airspace by pilots holding only glider category ratings, which does not imply knowledge of communication or radio navigation procedures. Powered gliders require knowledge levels similar to those of powered aircraft. The FAA believes that another option to establishing glider class ratings would be to treat powered gliders as single-engine airplanes. However, the FAA believes that treating powered gliders as airplanes would be a more restrictive approach. Therefore, the FAA proposes to pursue the class rating approach. The FAA proposes to convert current glider pilot and flight instructor certificates to the new class ratings over a 2-year period. A person who currently holds a private or commercial pilot certificate with a glider category rating could also obtain a nonpowered class rating if the person passed a practical test in a nonpowered glider, or obtain a powered class rating if the person passed a practical test in a powered glider. Currently, the FAR does not address powered gliders. For example, Secs. 61.107 and 61.127, which address flight proficiency for private and commercial pilot applicants, require training in glider launches by ground (auto or winch) or aero tows, and limits the applicant's certificate to the type of tow selected. The PTS for gliders include a powered glider self- launch limitation and specific tasks for powered gliders. The FAA also has addressed the unique characteristics of powered gliders in Advisory Circular (AC) 61-94, "Pilot Transition Course for Self-Launching or Powered Sailplanes (Motorgliders)." The AC recommends procedures and standards for glider pilots who want to accomplish a practical test in powered gliders. For holders of a flight instructor-glider certificate, the conversion would be based on the type of training the instructor has given. To obtain a flight instructor certificate for nonpowered gliders, an instructor would be required to have given at least 20 hours of flight training in a nonpowered glider and recommended at least one student for a practical test for a glider category rating (the proposed rule does not specify powered or nonpowered), and that student would have to have passed. To obtain a flight instructor certificate for powered gliders, a flight instructor with a glider category rating could be eligible to obtain a flight instructor certificate with a glider category and powered class rating if the instructor had given 20 hours of flight training in a powered glider and recommended at least one student for a practical test for a glider category and powered class rating, and that student would have to have passed. 4. New Instrument Ratings The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.5 to establish four additional instrument ratings: Airship, single-engine airplane, multiengine airplane, and powered- lift. Corresponding flight instructor instrument ratings for those specific aircraft also are proposed. a. Airship Instrument Rating Under the current FAR, the commercial pilot certificate for airships includes training and testing on instrument flight maneuvers and procedures and instrument flight rules (IFR). Currently, there is no separate instrument rating for airship pilots. The proposal to establish a separate instrument rating for airships is in response to current trends in design and certification of airships. These trends are toward smaller airships with specific intended uses, such as daytime aerial advertising. These airships are not designed or equipped for flight in instrument conditions, and therefore, pilots who train in these aircraft must either incur the expense of training in IFR-equipped airships or seek an exemption from the regulation. Industry experience indicates that the smaller, non-IFR-equipped airships in which the pilots train are generally the same airships those pilots will fly when they are certificated. Therefore, the FAA has concluded it is reasonable to separate the instrument rating requirements from the commercial pilot certification requirements. Historically, the airship industry has consisted of larger blimps and dirigibles that are certificated for operations including IFR, visual flight rules (VFR), and day and night flight. But very few airships operate in the United States, and the growth of the industry has been slow, with few pilots being certificated. However, the FAA notes that smaller, foreign-built airships are being operated in the United States. It is hoped that these signs of growth of the industry will be accompanied by the need for more airship pilots. A separate airship instrument rating will remove an obstacle to certification of commercial airship pilots desiring to fly these smaller airships, and help foster growth of this small segment of the aviation industry. The FAA proposes to delete airship instrument knowledge requirements from existing Sec. 61.125 and delete current Sec. 61.135, which refers to aeronautical experience requirements. The FAA proposes to incorporate in Sec. 61.65, flight training and skill requirements for airship instrument ratings. For pilots who do not hold an airship instrument rating, Sec. 61.139 would be amended to require a limitation to the commercial pilot certificate-airship that prohibits the carriage of passengers for hire in airships on cross- country flight or at night. The proposal includes a system of conversion of current commercial certificates to commercial certificates with an instrument rating. Under proposed Sec. 61.5, "Certificates and ratings issued under this part," the holder of a commercial pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and an airship class rating would be permitted to exchange that certificate for a certificate with an instrument-airship rating, if that person receives an endorsement from an authorized flight instructor who holds an instrument-airship rating on the flight instructor certificate, and that flight instructor has observed that person perform 10 hours of PIC time in an airship under IFR, or that person passes the instrument proficiency test of Sec. 61.57 in an airship, and the test was conducted by an examiner. b. Instrument Ratings--Airplanes The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.5 to establish separate instrument ratings for single-engine and multiengine airplanes and to establish corresponding instrument ratings for flight instructor certificates. Under the proposal a person who passes the practical test for an instrument rating in a single-engine airplane would be issued a pilot certificate with an instrument-airplane single-engine rating. If that person holds a multiengine airplane class rating and desires an instrument-airplane multiengine rating, the person would be required to pass a practical test for an instrument rating in a multiengine airplane. The proposal would permit a person who holds both a single engine and multiengine airplane class rating and passes a practical test for an instrument-airplane multiengine rating, to be allowed to exercise instrument privileges in single-engine airplanes. In addition, a person who desires to train students who want an instrument- airplane single-engine rating would be required to pass a practical test for a flight instructor certificate with an instrument-airplane single-engine rating. If that person desires to train students who want an instrument- airplane multiengine rating, the person would be required to pass a practical test for a flight instructor certificate with an instrument-airplane multiengine rating. A person who passes a practical test for a flight instructor-instrument-airplane multiengine rating and also holds a flight instructor single-engine airplane class rating would be permitted to train students for an instrument-airplane single-engine rating. This proposal is consistent with FAA policy in effect since October 1984, which requires applicants for multiengine airplane class ratings to demonstrate instrument proficiency on their multiengine practical test if they have an airplane instrument rating and desire IFR privileges for their multiengine rating. The policy was instituted based on an NTSB recommendation that followed an investigation of a 1981 multiengine airplane accident. The NTSB concluded that the accident may have been caused by excessive airloads generated by a nose-up control input by the pilot at high speed. This resulted in an in-flight breakup of the aircraft. The pilot had acquired his instrument rating in a single engine airplane, had limited experience in operation of multiengine airplanes in instrument meteorological conditions, and had no multiengine instrument training. Under the current FAA policy, applicants for a multiengine airplane class rating who hold an instrument rating for airplanes are required to demonstrate instrument proficiency in multiengine airplanes. If the applicant chooses not to demonstrate instrument proficiency, their multiengine airplane rating is limited to VFR privileges only. If an applicant with single-engine and multiengine class ratings takes the instrument practical test in a multiengine airplane, no restriction is added to the certificate. For example, a certificated pilot who holds a multiengine class rating with instrument privileges for airplanes, and who applies for an airplane single- engine class rating, may, upon successful completion of the airplane single- engine practical test, exercise instrument privileges in both classes of aircraft without showing instrument proficiency in single-engine airplanes. The FAA proposes to allow 2 years for pilots and flight instructors who currently hold single-engine and multiengine airplane class ratings and an instrument--airplane rating to convert to the new single-engine and multiengine instrument ratings. With the exception of those pilots who received an instrument rating before the current policy became effective, the proposed conversion would ensure that pilots who obtain instrument privileges in multiengine airplanes have demonstrated instrument proficiency in multiengine airplanes. Under the proposed rule, a person who holds a private or commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category rating and an instrument--airplane rating would be permitted to exchange that certificate for the new proposed certificate. The new private or commercial pilot certificate, as appropriate, would have either an instrument--airplane single-engine rating or instrument--multiengine class rating. For example, a person would be entitled to obtain an instrument--airplane single-engine rating if that person had an airplane single-engine class rating and had satisfactorily completed the practical test for an instrument rating in a single-engine airplane. Under the proposal, a person could exchange their certificate for a certificate with an instrument-airplane multiengine rating if one of the following conditions were met: (1) That person had an airplane multiengine class rating and had satisfactorily completed the practical test for an instrument rating in a multiengine airplane; (2) That person had an airplane multiengine class rating and had satisfactorily completed the practical test for an instrument rating in a single engine airplane and also demonstrated instrument proficiency during the practical test for the multiengine class rating such that the person's certificate did not bear the limitation "Airplane Multiengine VFR Only;" or (3) That person had an airplane multiengine class rating and had satisfactorily completed the practical test for an instrument rating in a single-engine airplane before October 1, 1984, the date on which the FAA policy, which requires multiengine candidates to demonstrate instrument proficiency when seeking instrument privileges, took effect. Under the proposal, in any of the above three cases, a pilot with a single- engine airplane class rating would also be entitled to the privileges of an instrument-airplane single-engine rating. A person with a flight instructor certificate and an instrument-airplane rating would be able to obtain a flight instructor certificate with an instrument-airplane single-engine or an instrument-airplane multiengine rating. A person would be able to receive a flight instructor certificate with an instrument-airplane single-engine rating by having given at least 20 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane for the issuance of an instrument-airplane rating as a certificated flight instructor. The person also would be required to have recommended at least one student for a practical test for the issuance of an instrument-airplane rating and the recommended student would have had to pass the practical test. A person would be able to receive a flight instructor certificate with an instrument-airplane multiengine rating by having given at least 20 hours of flight training in a multiengine airplane for the issuance of an instrument- airplane rating as a certificated flight instructor. The person also would be required to have recommended at least one student for a practical test for the issuance of an instrument-airplane rating and the recommended student would have had to pass the practical test. The FAA invites comments on the conversion process proposed for the instrument-airplane ratings. c. Instrument Rating--Powered-lift In addition to proposing a new powered-lift aircraft category rating, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.5 to establish a new instrument rating for powered-lift. The FAA also proposes to establish a corresponding powered-lift instrument rating for the flight instructor certificate. The FAA invites comments on the proposal to establish this new instrument-powered-lift rating and the powered-lift instrument rating for the flight instructor certificate. 5. Lighter-Than-Air Flight Instructor Certificate Under current regulations, any commercially licensed lighter-than-air pilot may provide flight training in the class of aircraft in which commercial privileges are held (i.e., airship or free balloon). A lighter-than-air commercial pilot who gives training under the authority of existing Sec. 61.139 is not bound by any of the recordkeeping requirements, authorizations, and limitations that apply to certificated flight instructors for the other categories of aircraft. Under the current PTS, commercial lighter-than-air applicants must be tested in all phases of the flight instructor area even if the applicant does not plan to train. Several balloon operators who made presentations at the public hearings or submitted comments to the docket favored the establishment of a flight instructor-balloon rating. Two balloon organizations indicated that, with the exception of those instructors associated with part 141 schools, the current training in balloons does not provide quality control measures for flight instructors. Several commenters said that the training and renewal requirements for balloon instructors should be the same or similar to those required of other aircraft flight instructors. The commenters also recommended that a proposal for a flight instructor-balloon rating should require: (1) A minimum number of hours as PIC; (2) a biennial renewal requirement; and (3) a passing grade on written and practical tests. In addition, the commenters recommended that such a proposal should provide for existing balloon instructors to convert to the new system. Comments also were submitted to the docket that opposed the addition of a flight instructor-balloon rating. One commenter stated a majority of balloon instructors would not elect to obtain a flight instructor certificate, creating a hardship for future pilots. Several commenters also disagreed with the suggestion that a specific number of hours as PIC should be required of current commercial pilots to obtain their flight instructor certificates. The commenters stated that existing commercial pilots have earned instructor privileges in accordance with today's FAR and that there is no need for a minimum hour cutoff. The FAA has determined that a flight instructor certificate should be created for the lighter-than-air category. The present system of incorporating training privileges into commercial certificates is a burden on commercial pilots who do not instruct. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that those who perform flight training in all aircraft categories and classes are subject to flight instructor training and renewal requirements. The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 61.5 to establish a flight instructor-airship rating and a flight instructor-balloon rating. The proposed revision to Sec. 61.3 includes a clause to permit holders of a commercial certificate with an airship or a free balloon class rating to train in the appropriate aircraft for 2 years after issuance of the final rule. A revision to Sec. 61.187 is proposed that would require a person who trains an applicant for a lighter-than-air flight instructor certificate to meet the same requirements as a person who trains other flight instructor applicants. Under the FAA's proposal, a person who trains flight instructor applicants for a lighter-than-air category rating would be required to have held a flight instructor certificate for at least 24 months and to have given at least 20 hours of flight training. This is the same minimum-hour requirement recommended by the Great Eastern Balloon Association during the public hearings. The FAA also has included a provision for a person who trains flight instructor applicants in an FAA-approved course. This person could either meet the 24-month and 20-hour requirement or: (1) Have trained and endorsed at least 5 persons for a pilot certificate or rating practical test; (2) have a record that reflects that at least 80 percent of the persons whom the flight instructor has endorsed for a practical test passed that test on their first attempt; and (3) have given at least 40 hours of flight training as a certificated flight instructor. The proposal also includes a provision for practicing lighter-than-air instructors (with commercial certificates) that requires them to obtain flight instructor certificates with lighter-than-air category ratings without passing a practical test. The proposal would revise Sec. 61.201 to provide a 2-year transition period for holders of a commercial certificate with an airship or a free balloon class rating to obtain a flight instructor certificate with an airship or a balloon rating. If this proposal is adopted, the FAA is considering allowing the conversion process to begin before the effective date of the proposed rule. Under the proposal, to obtain a flight instructor certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating, an applicant would need to present a valid commercial certificate with a lighter-than-air category rating and the appropriate class rating and have given at least 20 hours of flight training in airships or free balloons, as appropriate, as a commercial pilot. The applicant would also be required to have recommended at least one student for the issuance of a rating in an airship or balloon, as appropriate, and the student would have had to pass the practical test. The proposal includes a revision to Sec. 61.125 to remove the requirements for applicants for a commercial certificate, with a lighter-than-air category rating and an airship or balloon class rating, to obtain knowledge on training. 6. Revision of Ground Instructor Certificates and Ratings; Inclusion in Part 61 Part 143, "Ground Instructors," is outdated and inadequate for defining ground instructors' privileges and limitations, or their training and certification requirements. Under the current system, the ground instructor certificate is obtained on the basis of written tests only, with no practical test. Although a recency of experience requirement exists, there is no provision for renewal of ground instructor certificates. In addition, ground instructor certificates will be revised to distinguish ratings on the basis of aircraft category (i.e., ground instructor-airplane, ground instructor- rotorcraft, ground instructor-glider, etc). To make the ground instructor certificate more compatible with the demands of current training requirements, the FAA proposes to revise regulations on ground instructors and address the ground instructor certificate in a new subpart I in part 61. Current part 143, Ground Instructors, would be removed and reserved. Under the proposal, ground instructor certificates would be specific to aircraft categories. A practical test, as well as a knowledge test, would be required. The ground instructor certificate would still not expire, but new recency of experience requirements are proposed in order for a person to continue exercising the privileges of the certificate. This proposal would establish recordkeeping requirements for ground instructors and clarify ground instructors' privileges and limitations. During the public hearings, commenters agreed that parts 61 and 143 could be combined, provided the ground instructor certificate is retained. Commenters, including Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) recommended that applicants for a ground instructor certificate be required to pass a practical test. The test would include an oral segment, but not a flight segment. This proposal is based largely on the public comment. The proposal also reflects guidance contained in FAA Order 8700.1, "General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook," chapter 159, "Issuance of Ground Instructor Certificate and Added Ratings." subpart I is modeled on existing and proposed regulations for training and certification of flight instructors. The intent of the proposal is to recognize the importance of proper ground training and to make the ground instructor certificate more meaningful. A number of issues, particularly administrative issues, currently addressed in part 143, such as replacement of a lost certificate, testing procedures, and change of address, are addressed in there respective categories in the proposal, along with other certificates and ratings. The proposed subpart I primarily addresses issues unique to the ground instructor certificate. Some of the major differences between proposed subpart I and part 143 would include the following: 7. Eligibility and Tests The proposal for the ground instructor certificate and rating would establish a requirement for English-language ability, and would include the testing requirements. The required tests would include a test on the fundamentals of instructing, except for persons who are certificated teachers at or above the seventh grade level, employed as college or university instructors, or already hold a ground or flight instructor certificate. An additional knowledge test specific to the aircraft rating sought and an instrument knowledge test in the case of an instrument rating, would be required as well as a practical test. Another proposed provision would preclude the holder of a flight instructor certificate from taking tests for and obtaining a ground instructor certificate with the same aircraft category as already specified on the person's flight instructor certificate. This provision is needed because the ground instructor certificate would not grant additional privileges, but the process of obtaining it only adds to the FAA's workload because of the additional tests. However, the applicant may seek a ground instructor rating for a different aircraft category (i.e., a person who holds flight instructor-airplane single engine may apply for a ground instructor- rotorcraft, etc.). Some commenters recommended that a single "aviation instructor certificate," be established in lieu of separate flight or ground instructor certificates. An aviation instructor certificate could specify ground or flight instructor privileges or both. After reviewing this recommendation, the FAA believes the required knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to instruct in the different aircraft categories and classes and differences between flight instructing and ground instructing makes this difficult to comprehend how this would be better than the current system. However, the FAA does request comments on this issue. 8. Training Requirements An applicant for a ground instructor certificate would have to receive ground training on required aeronautical knowledge areas and fundamentals of instructing from a person who meets minimum experience requirements. The person giving the training would have to have at least 24 months experience as a ground instructor or flight instructor, and have given at least 40 hours of flight or ground training. However, if the ground instructor candidate is receiving training in a course approved under part 141, the person giving the training could either meet the 24-month and 40-hour experience requirement, or could have given 100 hours of ground or flight training. As an alternative, the applicant, under the proposal, could also accomplish the preparation through an independent, or home study program. Such preparation would have to be reviewed by an authorized instructor who meets the same experience requirements; the instructor would be required to sign an endorsement of the applicant's independent course of study. 9. Proficiency The practical test for a ground instructor certificate would cover approved areas of operation including preparing and conducting lesson plans, evaluating student knowledge, and analyzing and correcting common student errors. An applicant would be required to teach a ground school lesson as part of the practical test. The training for the practical test would have to be given by a person who meets the same minimum experience requirements as for the knowledge test, although no minimum amount of training would be specified. The practical test would be administered by an examiner. An applicant for an additional ground instructor rating would not be required to take a practical test. 10. Privileges and Limitations Subject to the limitations specified in part 61, a ground instructor would be permitted to give ground training for aeronautical knowledge areas; give endorsements required for pilot, ground instructor, and flight instructor certificates and ratings; give the ground training portion of the flight review; and give recommendations for knowledge tests. 11. Records Under the proposed recordkeeping requirements, a ground instructor would note in a student's logbook or training record information for each training session; i.e., the amount of time of the lesson, date, and topics. The ground instructor would be required to maintain a record of the following information: the name of each student whose logbook or training record that instructor endorsed for satisfactory completion of a course; the name of each student endorsed for a knowledge test and the results of the test; the name of each student endorsed or recommended for a practical test and the date of the endorsement or recommendation; and a copy of the training syllabus for each student trained. The records would be required to be kept for 3 years. In addition, although the proposed rule does not specify this, ground instructors should log the time during which they give ground training, to demonstrate sufficient experience giving ground training to ground instructor applicants. 12. Recency of Experience Existing Sec. 143.19 specifies that a ground instructor may not perform the duties of a ground instructor unless, within the 12 months before intending to perform the duties, the instructor has served for at least 3 months as a ground instructor, or the FAA has determined that the instructor meets the standards prescribed in part 143. Proposed Sec. 61.225, "Recency of experience for a holder of a ground instructor certificate," would state that a person's ground instructor certificate remains current for providing ground training for airman certification purposes, provided that person has either: (1) Trained at least one student and endorsed that student for a practical test; or (2) received an endorsement from a flight instructor or ground instructor indicating that the person had demonstrated satisfactory knowledge in the areas of operation that apply to the person's ground instructor ratings. The FAA believes these provisions will ensure that ground instructors stay current on industry developments, without imposing significant costs and burdens on persons who hold ground instructor certificates. 13. Conversion to New System of Ground Instructor Certificate The proposal would establish a 2-year period during which holders of ground instructor certificates could convert those certificates to the new system. The holder of a ground instructor certificate with a basic rating or an advanced rating would be permitted to exchange that certificate for a ground instructor certificate with an airplane category rating. The holder of a ground instructor certificate with an advanced rating and an instrument rating would be permitted to exchange that certificate for a ground instructor certificate with an airplane category rating and instrument rating. The holder of a ground instructor certificate who also holds a flight instructor certificate would be permitted to exchange the ground instructor certificate for a ground instructor certificate with the same aircraft category and instrument ratings as on that person's flight instructor certificate. 14. Medical Certificates a. Medical Eligibility Requirement for Applying for a Pilot or Flight Instructor Certificate The FAA proposes to change the medical certificate requirements for eligibility for pilot and flight instructor certificates. Under the proposed revision to Sec. 61.23 and other sections, applicants would only need a third-class medical certificate to be eligible to apply for a private, commercial, or an airline transport pilot or flight instructor certificate. Requirements for exercising the privileges of each certificate would remain as they are now. That is, a second-class medical certificate still would be required to exercise the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate, and a first-class medical certificate would be required to exercise the privileges of an ATP certificate. The concept behind the proposed changes is that pilots should be encouraged to continue training and earning new pilot certificates, regardless of whether they intend to use the certificates. In some cases, pilots may qualify for a third-class medical certificate, which is sufficient for undergoing training and taking a practical test for a commercial or ATP certificate, but may not meet the requirements for a second- or first-class medical certificate. The FAA believes that lack of the more stringent medical certificate should not prevent the pilots from earning the more advanced pilot certificates and enhancing their pilot skills and proficiency. The FAA proposes to include a provision in Sec. 61.39, "Prerequisites for practical tests," requiring an applicant to hold at least a third-class medical certificate, if a medical certificate is required. Section 61.39 currently requires a practical test applicant to hold a current medical certificate that applies to the certificate sought or, in the case of a rating to be added to a pilot certificate, at least a valid third-class medical certificate. Corresponding changes are also proposed to the subparts addressing the various certificates and ratings. b. Medical Requirements for Recreational Pilots and Holders of a Higher Pilot Certificate Exercising the Privileges of a Recreational Pilot Certificate The FAA is proposing to allow pilots who hold recreational pilot certificates and those higher rated pilots who elect only to exercise recreational pilot privileges to operate aircraft without a medical certificate. Specifically, this proposal would include student pilots who are seeking a recreational pilot certificate, holders of a recreational pilot certificate, and holders of a higher pilot certificate who elect only to exercise the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate. This proposal would be a significant departure from long-standing FAA policy. Since the early 1930s all pilots, except glider and balloon pilots, have been required to hold medical certificates in order to exercise the privileges of their pilot certificates. The FAA determined that medical certificates were required for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the pilot in command and passengers, and also for the safety of people and property on the ground. As a result of the EAA petition discussed earlier and the interest shown in the general aviation community, the FAA is seeking wider comment on whether recreational pilots and holders of a higher pilot certificate who elect to exercise the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate should be required to hold medical certificates. The FAA is also seeking data on any safety or other public interest concerns that may arise from obviating any review of medical qualifications by medical professionals. Pilots applying for a recreational pilot certificate would be required to certify at the time of application that they have no known medical condition or deficiency that makes them unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. This requirement parallels the provisions that are now provided to balloon and glider pilots under the current rules. This proposal would prohibit pilots from exercising the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate if they have a known medical condition or deficiency that would make them unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner or if they are taking any medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that would make them unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. (This ongoing obligation is discussed in more detail under the section-by-section analysis.) The FAA is not proposing specific medical standards for this pilot self-evaluation but instead are proposing that pilots self-evaluate prior to each flight whether they have any medical conditions that would inhibit their ability to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. The FAA would rely on the pilot's knowledge and judgment as to their medical fitness for conducting each flight. The FAA strongly encourages the public to comment on whether there should be specific medical standards upon which the pilot should base their self-evaluation. If so, what should those standards be? In particular, the FAA would like comments in response to the following questions: (1) Should the rule specifically prohibit holders of pilot certificates who do not also hold medical certificates from flying if they know or should know that they have certain conditions? For example, should the rule exclude persons who believe that they have no known medical deficiencies even if they know, or have any reason to know, that they have: (a) A visual problem, e.g., vision un-correctable to at least 20/30? (b) An equilibrium problem? (c) Alcoholism to the extent that the intake of alcohol has caused damage to their physical health, personal or social functioning, or is required to enable them to perform normal functions? (d) A drug dependence? (e) A personality disorder, neurosis, or a mental condition that makes them unable to safely operate a vehicle or machinery? (f) Epilepsy or a disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause? (g) A convulsive disorder, disturbance of consciousness, or neurologic condition that makes them unable to safely operate a vehicle or machinery? (h) A myocardial infarction (heart attack), angina pectoris, or a coronary heart disease? (i) Diabetes? (j) An organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or limitation that makes them unable to safely operate a vehicle or machinery? (k) Any other serious medical problem that makes them unable to safely operate a vehicle or machinery? (2) Should the rule state that pilots who have failed a medical examination by the FAA be prohibited from claiming that they have no known medical deficiencies? (3) Should the rule state that pilots who have had their medical certificate revoked or suspended be prohibited from claiming that they have no known medical deficiencies? (4) Should the rule state that pilots who hold or have held a medical special issuance be prohibited from claiming that they have no known medical deficiencies? (5) What, if any, documentation should the FAA require persons without an airman medical certificate to execute in order to identify that they have evaluated their medical fitness to fly and that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, they are medically qualified to pilot an aircraft? How often (before each flight, annually)? What kind of documentation? (6) How, if at all, should the FAA require pilots without a medical certificate to disclose to passengers that they have not been medically certificated by the FAA? The FAA recognizes that broad scale medical self-evaluation could create substantial obstacles to the FAA's ability to enforce Sec. 61.53. Therefore, the FAA also requests comments on the following issues: (7) How would the FAA enforce and monitor compliance with Sec. 61.53(b)? (8) Should pilots who do not hold medical certificates be obligated to provide the FAA with their medical history/records upon request, either as part of a specific investigation or randomly as part of a compliance program? (9) Should the FAA be able to require pilots who do not hold medical certificates to undergo medical testing when any uncertainty exists as to whether or not they have any medical problems? Under this proposal, pilots with an airplane, rotorcraft, or a glider rating and who elect to only exercise recreational pilot privileges would be eligible to conduct "recreational pilot" operations without having to hold or obtain a medical certificate. Therefore, a person's pilot certificate may represent apparent authority to conduct those operations even when that person may not be medically qualified under part 67 of this chapter. Under the current rule, these operations would require the pilots to hold and have in their possession a current medical certificate. Because of the possible enforcement problems associated with determining an individual's actual authority to operate, the FAA is also seeking comments on the following: (10) Should pilots who have known medical deficiencies be required to surrender their airman certificates? (11) If pilots are allowed to keep their airmen certificates when they have a known medical deficiency, should the FAA require the airmen certificates to be stamped "NOT VALID UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY A CURRENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATE?" The FAA is strongly encouraging the public to express their concerns regarding these questions as well as any other issues pertinent to this proposal. The FAA requests comments on whether the limited operational scope of a recreational pilot certificate, under which all the above pilots would be required to operate, makes requiring these pilots to submit to medical examinations an unnecessarily burdensome process. Section 61.101 lists the limitations of a recreational pilot certificate, which includes, among other things, the following limitations: A recreational pilot may not operate an aircraft--with more than one passenger on board the aircraft; that is certificated for more than 4 occupants; with more than one powerplant; with a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower; with a retractable landing gear; that is classified as a multiengine airplane, powered-lift, glider, airship, or balloon; carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire nor may the pilot operate for compensation or hire; in furtherance of a business; between sunset and sunrise; in airspace in which communication with air traffic control is required; at an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher; when the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles; without visual reference to the surface; on a flight outside the United States; to demonstrate that aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer; used in a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by a charitable organization; and that is towing any object. The FAA is also proposing to allow recreational pilots who have received the cross-country training required for private pilot certification to fly beyond the 50 nautical mile limit which is now required by the current Sec. 61.101. The FAA acknowledges that there are a number of difficult issues surrounding this concept, and that the data and analysis currently developed are limited at best. The FAA is therefore requesting comments that provide supporting data and analysis on the likely effects of changing the FAA's long-standing medical certification policy for pilots. In particular, the FAA would like comments on the potential impact on safety. On November 17, 1994, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) provided the FAA with general aviation accident data involving medical incapacitation since 1982 for balloon and glider pilots. There have been a total of 7 accidents involving balloon and glider pilots since 1982 where a finding was made on medical incapacitation as a cause or factor involved in the accident. Out of those 7 accidents, 4 pilots had valid medical certificates, 2 pilots had held a medical certificate but the certificates were expired, and only 1 pilot did not hold a medical certificate. There were 5 fatalities, 1 serious injury, and 1 minor injury. The NTSB's data and brief summaries showed the following information: (1) Date: June 18, 1983, Category of Aircraft: Balloon, Crew Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical Certification: Yes, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 58, Brief summary: After takeoff, the pilot collapsed to the floor of the gondola and had difficulty breathing. The balloon hit the porch of a house and was substantially damaged. The pilot died from acute myocardial infarction. (2) Date: February 20, 1986, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injuries: 0, Medical Certification: Yes, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 65, Brief summary: Medical examination of the pilot revealed that the pilot had a history of heart condition and at the time of the accident the pilot experienced an heart arrhythmia associated with a myocardial infarction. (3) Date: February 24, 1990, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical Certification: None, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 53, Brief summary: Pilot had a history of epileptic seizures. Toxicological analysis revealed the drug carbamazepine present in the blood and urine samples at therapeutic levels. The drug was an anticonvulsant which causes drowsiness. (4) Date: July 31, 1990, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew Injuries: 1 minor, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical Certification: Yes, Miscellaneous statistics: Female, age 56, Brief summary: Pilot had reported she had injured her right arm during flight into turbulent conditions. She stated she was unable to control the pitch of the glider due to her injuries and had to parachute out. (5) Date: July 19, 1991, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical Certification: Medical certificate had lapsed, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 63, Brief summary: An autopsy revealed the pilot had cardiovascular disease, including coronary atherosclerosis with thrombosis of bypass graft. (6) Date: July 31, 1991, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew Injuries: 1 fatal, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical Certification: Unknown, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 25, Brief summary: Pilot reported a midair collision with another glider. The NTSB's finding determination was the failure of the pilot to maintain an adequate visual lookout and the collision induced incapacitation. (7) Date: September 21, 1991, Category of Aircraft: Glider, Crew Injuries: 1 serious, Passenger/Gnd personnel injury: 0, Medical Certification: Medical certificate had lapsed, Miscellaneous statistics: Male, age 72, Brief summary: Pilot reported that he blacked out. In addition, the NTSB supplied the FAA with the following total general aviation aircraft accident data and statistics involving medical incapacitation as a cause or factor in their finding during the years 1982 through 1993: Injuries Fatal Aircraft Accidents Accidents Fatal Serious Minor None 1982 10 10 8 11 1 0 42 1983 7 7 5 6 1 0 6 1984 15 15 10 21 6 2 21 1985 14 14 9 11 2 4 117 1986 12 12 7 9 1 1 307 1987 14 14 11 56 0 0 112 1988 13 13 7 7 6 3 104 1989 7 7 6 7 0 0 2 1990 7 7 6 8 0 1 0 1991 20 20 14 15 6 5 23 1992 13 13 10 19 4 1 69 1993 6 6 3 3 1 0 209 Totals 132 132 96 170 28 17 1012 *This data does not differentiate between those pilots who held current, valid medical certificates at the time of the accident and those who allowed their medical certificates to lapse or never held medical certificates. Furthermore, this data did not filter out those accidents that were a result of a medical incapacitation involving an injury sustained during the flight or alcohol or illegal drug incapacitation. 15. Required Pilot Possession of Pilot and Medical Certificates The FAA proposes to clarify the requirement in Sec. 61.3 that a pilot, flight instructor, ground instructor, or medical certificate must be in the person's "personal possession" whenever that person exercises the privileges of the certificate. The FAA's intent is to have pilots and instructors carry their certificates on or near their person while exercising the privileges of that certificate. A legal decision has demonstrated that the current requirement can be interpreted in more than one manner. For example, "personal possession" was interpreted to permit a pilot to exercise the privileges of a pilot certificate while the certificate remained behind in the pilot's residence or automobile. The general purpose of the regulation, however, is to enable pilots or required flight crewmembers to present their certificate to an authorized person upon request and at the time of that request. The FAA proposes to replace the reference "personal possession" with the requirement that a certificate be in the "person's physical possession or readily available." This way, a pilot certificate would be available when requested by an authorized person. Additionally, a person who carries their pilot and medical certificates in their briefcase or in a purse aboard the aircraft would still be in compliance with the rule. However, this does not mean that person could state their pilot and medical certificates are located at their home in a desk drawer and still be in compliance with the term in the "person's physical possession or readily available." 16. Issuance of U.S. Pilot Certificates on the Basis of Foreign Pilot Licenses The FAA proposes several changes to Sec. 61.75, regarding issuance of a U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of a foreign pilot license. The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.75 to require that when a foreign pilot certificate is not in the English language, the person must provide a signed English transcription of the license and its limitations from the foreign government's aviation agency. An English-language transcription would help avoid incorrect issuance of a U.S. pilot certificate, letter of authorization, or appropriate ratings through inaccurate translations. This amendment would also help to ensure that all requirements of Sec. 61.75 are met and there is no endorsement on the certificate stating that the pilot has not met all of the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for that license. This proposal would require evidence of meeting medical standards on which foreign certificates are based and an English- language transcription of the foreign medical certificate. The FAA also proposes to revise Sec. 61.75 to eliminate the issuance of commercial pilot certificates when issuing U.S. pilot certificates on the basis of a foreign pilot license. Under the proposed amendment, the U.S. would honor or accept a foreign-issued pilot certificate for the issuance of a U.S. private pilot certificate only. This would replace the current practice of issuing a private pilot certificate to the holder of a foreign private pilot license, and a commercial pilot certificate to the holder of a foreign commercial, senior commercial, or ATP license. This change would be mainly for clarification because current policy is to endorse the U.S. commercial pilot certificate as "not valid for operations for compensation or hire," which effectively limits the certificate to private pilot privileges only. The proposed rule would delete language specifically disallowing the U.S. certificate to be used for agricultural operations. However, persons who have been issued commercial pilot certificates on the basis of their foreign pilot certificate prior to the effective date of this rule would be allowed to continue to hold that pilot certificate. However, if the person seeks an additional rating, then the certificate would be reissued at the private pilot certificate level. The FAA also proposes to revise Sec. 61.75 to delete language that bases the pilot privileges on those authorized by the foreign pilot license. Under the proposal, the holder of a U.S. private pilot certificate issued under Sec. 61.75 would be permitted to act as a pilot of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft in accordance with private pilot privileges authorized by part 61 that are placed on the U.S. certificate. This will clarify that operating authority is derived from the U.S. private pilot certificate issued, which contains the privileges and limitations. Any additional limitations and restrictions (e.g., weight of aircraft) that are on the foreign pilot license are incorporated by reference onto the U.S. private pilot certificate. The proposed rule language would further clarify that personal possession of the foreign pilot license is required in order to exercise the privileges of the U.S. private pilot certificate. Finally, the proposal would clarify that the pilot would not be allowed to exercise the privileges on the U.S. certificate if the foreign pilot license was revoked or suspended. Under current Sec. 61.75, FAA practice permits persons who cannot read, speak, write, and understand the English language to be issued a pilot certificate with certain limitations restricting operations in airspace requiring the use of the English language. In accordance with this proposal, the practice would be discontinued and persons issued certificates under this section would be required to be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. However, those persons who cannot read, speak, write, and understand the English language and who have been issued pilot certificates with limitations that restrict operations in airspace requiring the use of the English language prior to the effective date of this rule would be allowed to continue to hold that certificate. If the person seeks an additional rating or higher level pilot certificate, then the certificate would not be issued unless the person is able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. The regulation currently requires evidence that the applicant meet the medical standards for the foreign pilot license on which the application for a U.S. certificate is based. This evidence may include a U.S. medical certificate. The proposed rule would state specifically that the applicant must hold a current medical certificate, either issued under part 67, or issued by the state that issued the foreign pilot license. Special Purpose Pilot Authorization The FAA proposes to revise the rules regarding the issuance of special purpose pilot certificates for the operation of U.S.-registered civil airplanes leased by a person who is not a U.S. citizen. The FAA proposes to replace the issuance of special purpose pilot certificates with the issuance of special purpose pilot authorizations that will be issued by a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). Persons who have been issued special purpose pilot certificates, prior to effective date of this rule, would continue to be allowed to exercise the privileges of that certificate until the certificate expires. However, once the special purpose pilot certificate expires, the pilot would be required to surrender the certificate for a special purpose pilot authorization and comply with the provisions contained in proposed Sec. 61.77. Standardization of the "Age 60 Limitation" for Airmen Employed by Foreign Air Carriers in Scheduled International Air Services or Non-Scheduled International Air Transport Operations The FAA proposes to clarify Secs. 61.3 and 61.77 relating to the "Age 60 Limitation" with part 121. This proposal will cover all U.S. and foreign pilots, who are 60 years of age or older, and who are employed by a foreign air carrier that operates U.S.-registered civil aircraft for compensation or hire in scheduled international air services and non-scheduled international air transport operations. This proposal will make the rules of part 61 consistent with the standards contained in part 121. 17. Logging Flight Time The FAA proposes revisions in the logging of pilot flight time. The proposals are contained in Sec. 61.1a, Clarification of terms, and in Sec. 61.51, Pilot logbooks. The FAA proposes these revisions largely in response to public concern regarding various aspects of the rules on logging flight time. Many of the participants at the public hearings encouraged the FAA to clarify the existing regulations. For example, some recommended that the term "solo flight time" be deleted and that student pilots be permitted to log "solo" time as PIC time. Proposed Sec. 61.1a would clarify that pilot time is any time a person operates as a required pilot, receives training from an authorized instructor, or gives training in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device. Flight time would be clarified as pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest at the point of landing. The FAA proposes that in the case of a nonpowered glider, flight time would begin when the nonpowered glider commences being towed for the purpose of flight and would end when the nonpowered glider comes to rest at the destination. In Sec. 61.1a, the FAA proposes to describe cross-country time for three separate circumstances: For persons who hold a private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate; for persons applying for a private or commercial pilot certificate or instrument rating; and for military pilots. For holders of private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificates, the criteria for cross-country flight would include landing at a point other than the point of departure and use of dead reckoning, pilotage, or navigation aids to navigate. No minimum distance would be specified. However, for persons applying for a private or commercial pilot certificate or for an instrument rating, the point of landing would be required to be more than 50 nautical miles from the point of departure. For a military pilot who holds or is qualified for a private or commercial pilot certificate under Sec. 61.73, cross-country time would be flight over a distance of more than 50 nautical miles. However, the FAA recognizes that military flight operations may require pilots to navigate and fly considerable distances without landing at a point other than the point of departure. Therefore, proposed Sec. 61.1a would not require that a landing occur at any point other than the departure point. Proposed Sec. 61.51 would eliminate reference to "solo" time as a type of pilot experience or training equivalent to PIC time. The proposal would permit student pilot certificate holders to log PIC time when they: are the sole occupant of the aircraft; have a supervised PIC flight endorsement; and are undergoing a course of training for a pilot certificate or rating or are logging PIC time toward a certificate or rating. The description of solo flight time in current Sec. 61.51 would be eliminated under the proposal. The proposal would specify that, except when a flight instructor gives flight training, only one person at a time may log PIC flight time. This provision is intended to eliminate current confusion, particularly regarding the current provision that permits any pilot to log PIC time when acting as PIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the regulations under which the flight is conducted. Instead, the proposal would state that the holder of a pilot certificate may log PIC time only when that pilot: (1) Has the final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; (2) holds the appropriate ratings; (3) has been designated PIC before the flight; and (4) the PIC time occurred in actual flight conditions and in an aircraft. Although the current regulation also specifies that a flight instructor may log as PIC time all flight time during which the person acts as a flight instructor, the proposed rule would provide more detail regarding the conditions under which this occurs. For example, the flight instructor would have to be authorized to conduct the training; hold at least a third-class medical certificate; and occupy a pilot station with functioning flight controls. To log PIC time the certificated pilot receiving flight training would have to be qualified to conduct the flight in accordance with the FAR; manipulate the controls of the aircraft; and be undergoing a course of training for the issuance of a certificate or rating or obtaining recency of experience requirements. In addition, the aircraft would have to have dual functioning flight controls and engine controls that could be reached from either pilot station. The proposal would not significantly alter the current requirements regarding logging of instrument time. However, the proposal would state that if a safety pilot is required, the name and pilot certificate number of the safety pilot must be recorded and the location and kind of each completed instrument approach. The current rule does not require the safety pilot's certificate number. The proposal would specify the information that should be recorded regarding flight training toward a certificate, rating, or flight review. This would include a description of the training given, the length of the lesson, the instructor's signature, certificate number, and certificate expiration date. The proposal would modify the current provision of Sec. 61.51 that applies to the requirement for presentation of the person's logbook. The proposal would list the other records a person must present, in addition to the logbook, upon the request of an authorized official. The other documents include the pilot certificate, medical certificate, or any other record required under part 61. Both the current rule and proposed rule refer to officials representing the Administrator and the NTSB. However, the current rule also refers to a State or local law enforcement officer; the proposal would expand this to include any law enforcement officer. 18. Recency of Experience Requirements The FAA proposes to modify a number of the recency of experience requirements in Sec. 61.57. The current requirement for three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days would be modified to allow night takeoffs and landings to also count for daytime currency. However, the takeoffs and landings would have to be to a complete stop, whether accomplished during day or night or in an airplane with tailwheel landing gear or tricycle landing gear. In retaining the current requirements, night operations will involve knowledge, skill, and ability that are sufficient for currency for daytime operations. However, safety will be better served if the regulation requires full-stop landings, at least for the purpose of meeting the requirements of proposed Sec. 61.57, rather than encouraging "touch-and-go" operations. A landing is not completed until the airplane is stopped and off the runway. As an example, crosswinds may cause a wing to lift suddenly, or mistakes can be made during a hasty effort to "clean up" the airplane (i.e., retract flaps, turn off carburetor heat, etc.). Additional language is proposed that would require each takeoff and landing to involve a flight in the traffic pattern at the recommended traffic pattern altitude for the airport. This language is intended for pilots of helicopters and powered-lift aircraft, which could takeoff and land in virtually one spot. However, the intent of the rule is that pilots perform a complete takeoff and landing operation, including operating in the airport traffic pattern. 19. Instrument Currency In addition, the FAA proposes to revise the requirements for instrument currency. Currently, Sec. 61.57 sets the minimum requirements for recent instrument flight experience. For aircraft other than gliders, a pilot must have logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, within the past 6 calendar months. The pilot must also have conducted at least six instrument approaches in that time. A pilot who does not meet the requirement of 6 hours and six approaches during the prescribed time or 6 months thereafter must pass an instrument proficiency test. The revision in instrument currency requirements proposed here for aircraft other than gliders is based on a petition for rulemaking from Newton W. Miller, who advocates changing the requirements to emphasize instrument approaches and reduce the number of hours flown under simulated or actual instrument conditions to meet recency of experience requirements. The petition, summarized in the Federal Register on October 25, 1984 (49 FR 42943; Docket No. 24247), advocates decreasing the required flight hours to 2 or 3 hours (including at least 1 hour in the category of aircraft involved) and increasing the number of required approaches to 10 or 12. The petitioner argues that the 6 hours of simulated instrument flight may be flown largely in straight and level flight, which probably is relatively unchallenging to most instrument-rated pilots and does not significantly contribute to maintaining instrument proficiency. The petitioner also states that 6 hours is an economic burden to many pilots and encourages pilots "to fly while not legally current." The petitioner states that aircraft control combined with the complex demands of following approach plates and communicating with ATC are much more germane to IFR proficiency. Therefore, the petitioner states, the number of required approaches should be increased. The petitioner states that 10 or 12 approaches could be conducted in 2 hours of flight time. One comment was submitted in response to that petition. In that comment, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) stated that the present regulation does not ensure proficiency, because a pilot may take an instrument proficiency test and not fly in instrument conditions for up to 6 months but still be legally current. The petitioner raises an important issue in focusing on the quality of the time spent in instrument flight, especially simulated instrument flight, although the FAA disagrees that the current regulation encourages pilots to disregard the FAR and fly illegally. Therefore, the FAA proposes to revise the instrument recency of experience requirements. Under the proposal, to act as PIC under IFR, or in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, within the preceding 6 calendar months for aircraft other than gliders, a pilot would be required to have performed and logged: (1) At least six precision instrument approaches; (2) at least six nonprecision instrument approaches, (3) holding procedures; (4) intercepting and tracking VOR radials and NDB bearings; (5) recovery from unusual flight attitudes; and (6) flight by reference to instruments. However, these maneuvers and procedures would not be required to be performed in actual or simulated instrument flight. No minimum number of hours of simulated or actual instrument flight time would be specified. Proposed Sec. 61.1a would define an instrument approach as an approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted to an established minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH), or if necessary, to a higher altitude selected for safety reasons by ATC. Part 97 prescribes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) for instrument letdown to airports in the United States. These proposed requirements could be met either in actual flight and in the category of aircraft for which instrument privileges are sought, or in an approved flight simulator or flight training device representative of the category of aircraft for which instrument privileges are sought. Instrument recency of experience in gliders would change mainly in format under the proposal. Pilots would be required to perform and log at least 3 hours of instrument time in actual flight, of which at least one-half must have been in a glider or single-engine airplane if the pilot does not carry passengers. If the pilot does carry passengers, the pilot must have performed and logged at least 3 hours of instrument time in a glider. The FAA also proposes to clarify the requirements for an instrument proficiency test. Currently, the instrument proficiency test would be required for a person who has not met the instrument recency requirements within the prescribed time or within 6 calendar months after that time. The FAA proposes to clarify this issue by amending Sec. 61.57 to require that the test include a representative number of tasks required for original certification of an instrument rating. The FAA issued an NPRM on April 11, 1994 (59 FR 17162) to waive the recency of experience requirements of Sec. 61.57 for PICs of parts 121 and 135 operators. Specifically, that NPRM proposed relief to PICs of parts 121 and 135 operators from having to comply with the recency of experience requirements, (i.e., general, night, and instrument) of Sec. 61.57. Parts 121 and 135 have recency of experience requirements that are at least equivalent to the recency of experience requirements of Sec. 61.57, so duplication of these requirements are unnecessary. The final rule is scheduled for issuance in 1994. The proposals in this NPRM would extend the exception requirements for the general and night recency experience requirements of Sec. 61.57 to PICs of part 125 operators, but not the instrument recency experience requirements. The FAA believes the training programs and structured operational controls placed on PICs in part 125 operations are adequate in ensuring that there will not be a degradation in safety. The FAA believes that the redundant recency of experience requirements in part 125, in addition to the structured training programs and operational controls placed on PICs of part 125 operators more than adequately cover any safety concerns provided by exempting these PICs from the recency of experience requirements of Sec. 61.57. 20. English Language Ability Requirements The FAA proposes to standardize English language fluency requirements for all certificates and ratings and to eliminate exceptions in certain rules that permit pilots to be certificated without meeting English language fluency requirements, under certain restrictions. The proposal to eliminate exceptions to the English language requirements would affect all pilot and flight instructor applicants. This proposal would be addressed in each of the eligibility paragraphs of each pilot certificate level and would require all applicants to be able to read, speak, and understand the English language. Under the proposal, the reference to operating limitations would be deleted, and all applicants would be required to meet the language requirements. A similar provision in current Sec. 61.75, which provides for placement of limitations on a pilot certificate issued on the basis of a foreign pilot license, also would be deleted. As with the pilot certificates and ratings, the applicant for a U.S. pilot certificate, on the basis of a foreign pilot license, would have to be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. The FAA has grown increasingly concerned that pilots' inability to sufficiently read, speak, and understand English during radio communication and in dealing with air traffic control poses a serious safety hazard. The exceptions referred to have not effectively kept such pilots out of airspace in which command of the English language is essential, and for safety reasons, the FAA believes all pilots who operate in the National Airspace System (NAS) should meet the English language requirements. Current holders who cannot read, speak, write, and understand the English language, but have been issued pilot certificates with limitations that restrict operations in airspace requiring the use of the English language prior to effective date of this rule would be allowed to continue to hold that certificate. If the person seeks an additional rating or higher level pilot certificate, then the certificate will not be issued unless the person is able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. The proposal would eliminate, as superfluous, current language in Sec. 61.151 that requires applicants for the ATP certificate to speak English without accent or speech impediment that would interfere with two-way radio conversation. The FAA believes that the requirement to speak English means speak well enough to participate clearly and safely in radio communications. 21. Flight Training Given by a Flight Instructor Not Certificated by the FAA Existing Sec. 61.41, "Flight instruction received from flight instructors not certificated by the FAA," permits flight training received by a flight instructor who is not certificated by the FAA to be credited toward the requirements for a U.S. pilot certificate or rating. However, the instructor is required to either be a: (1) Member of an Armed Force of either the United States or a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in a program for training military pilots; or (2) flight instructor authorized to give that flight training by the licensing authority of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the flight training is given outside the United States. Section 61.41 contradicts existing Sec. 61.3, which states that flight training must be given by the holder of a flight instructor certificate issued by the Administrator. The exceptions to this requirement do not include flight instructors who are not certificated by the FAA. The absence of an exception for these flight instructors has caused confusion in relation to Sec. 61.41. Currently, the FAA permits flight training received by a flight instructor who meets the requirements of Sec. 61.41 to be credited toward the requirements found in part 61. The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 61.3 to ensure that, under certain circumstances, the recipient of flight training from a flight instructor who is not certificated by the FAA, may credit that flight training toward the requirements in part 61. Such a privilege is granted in the existing regulation but is subject to misinterpretation. 22. Second-in-Command (SIC) Training and Recent Experience The FAA proposes to clarify the familiarization review requirements under Sec. 61.55 for pilots serving as SIC of an aircraft that requires more than one pilot. Under the proposal, a person serving as SIC would be required to have completed, within the previous 12 calendar months, a familiarization review on specific subjects for the type of aircraft in which privileges are requested. As with other issues in this proposal, the FAA seeks greater structure and standardization. The proposed section would maintain current provisions providing exceptions to the training requirements. For example, the training requirements do not and would not apply to pilots qualified as PIC or SIC under parts 121, 125, or 135. In addition, pilots designated as SIC for the purpose of receiving flight training required under Sec. 61.55, where no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft do not and would not have to meet the training requirements. Exceptions to the training requirements would also continue to be made for pilots holding a commercial pilot or ATP certificate in the case of ferry flights, test flights, or evaluation flights, provided no persons or cargo unnecessary for conducting the flight are carried aboard the aircraft. 23. Knowledge Tests As discussed in the section on Clarification of Terms, the FAA proposes to use the term "knowledge test" to replace the term "written test." Knowledge tests will include tests administered by computer, which already are acceptable to the FAA; this term will update the FAR terminology to conform with the educational community. In addition, the FAA proposes to require that applicants for knowledge tests obtain a logbook endorsement from an instructor in order to be eligible to take a knowledge test. This will end the current practice in which applicants request an FAA inspector from a FSDO to review and discuss their home study materials as evidence that they have completed a home study course. This practice constitutes an unnecessary workload for the FAA and is a role more properly filled by ground or flight instructors. Home study would still be acceptable; the only change would be that an instructor's endorsement would be required, but a review by the FAA would not. The FAA proposes to continue requiring an endorsement to take the knowledge test to dissuade applicants from taking the test with inadequate preparation, again, to avoid undue administrative burden. Many applicants taking and retaking the knowledge tests might delay grading and response time, which would be unfair to applicants who completed courses and prepared for the tests. 24. Standardized Syllabus The Notice of Hearings (54 FR 22732; May 25, 1989) invited public comment on whether parts 61 and 141 should be consolidated into one regulation and whether all training should be performed from a standardized curriculum. Under the current system, pilot and flight instructor training is conducted to meet the criteria and requirements of aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency, as set out in part 61 and the PTS. There is no requirement in part 61 for an applicant to complete an FAA-approved ground and flight training syllabus before obtaining a pilot or instructor certificate or rating. Part 141 provides a specific method for meeting the part 61 requirements through training programs conducted at approved schools that offer standardized curricula and are monitored by the FAA to ensure quality training. Part 61 requires specific course structure and organization, detailed recordkeeping, increased standardization of training, and increased supervision of training. Testing standards are the same for pilots trained at non-approved schools or by independent instructors. Although many of the comments received in response to the Notice of Hearings and at the public hearings supported consolidating parts 61 and 141, many commenters also wanted to maintain the current system of approving FAA pilot schools under part 141 and having schools and independent instructors operate under part 61 only. However, during the public hearings, many participants agreed that performing training under a standard curriculum or syllabus may be beneficial. Nevertheless, they disagreed on whether the written training program should be prepared by the FAA or developed by industry and approved by the FAA. Many recommended that outlines be generated by the school and approved by the FAA. Some commenters noted that peculiarities of geographic area may not be included in a syllabus generated by the FAA. Participants suggested that a general syllabus could be published in an advisory circular format as guidance. Based on the public comments and its own study of the issue, the FAA believes that part 61 and part 141 should not be combined or consolidated. However, the FAA is proposing that all training for pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates and ratings should be performed according to a written syllabus. The intent of this proposal is to encourage all training to be conducted according to a more organized and standardized format. This approach to training would give students and trainees the benefit of more structured training programs, an advantage that currently exists in training conducted under part 141 (or parts 121 and 135). The FAA believes that many independent instructors and pilot schools conducting training under part 61 already understand this and use written syllabi although no regulatory requirement exists. However, the FAA would like to see this approach become the industry norm. The FAA proposes to establish a new Sec. 61.9 to require an instructor who provides training for an airman certificate or rating issued under part 61 to use a written syllabus that includes a summary of total training time; planned training time for each lesson; a detailed description of training to be covered in each lesson; and the aeronautical knowledge areas and approved areas of operation that apply to the airman certificate or rating. Because this requirement would apply to training conducted under part 61, and schools that conduct training under part 61 are not directly subject to FAA approval or certification, the instructor would bear responsibility for ensuring that all necessary areas of aeronautical knowledge and operation were covered in the training program. The proposal also would require the instructor to give a copy of the syllabus to the student at the outset of the training and ensure that the student completed the syllabus before the practical test. The FAA does not, at this time, propose to require instructors to submit the syllabi for FAA approval. This would constitute a major administrative workload for the FAA and for instructors. However, the instructor would be required to maintain a copy of the syllabus, make it available for FAA inspection upon request, and provide each student with a record of the training accomplished. This proposal would revise Sec. 61.189 to require each flight instructor to retain for 3 years a copy of the syllabus for each person trained by that instructor. Proposed Sec. 61.219 would include the same requirement for ground instructors. The FAA does not intend for each instructor to produce a personal syllabus for each course of training, although there is nothing to preclude such an effort should an instructor prefer to do that. Syllabi could be based on training courses published by manufacturers and training organizations. The FAA believes that the use of training syllabi would provide more continuity in training conducted under part 61. This is particularly important for students who change instructors in the midst of a training program. 25. Training and Endorsements The FAA proposes several initiatives to enhance pilot training and preparation. These efforts include additional training and instructor endorsements that cover human factors training, windshear avoidance training, and special aircraft certification training for pilots. In addition, current endorsement requirements for complex and high performance airplanes would be clarified under the proposal. 26. Endorsement for Complex and High Performance Airplanes The FAA proposes to amend current Sec. 61.31, which deals with high performance and complex airplanes. Under this proposed revision, complex and high performance airplane endorsements would be discussed in separate paragraphs of Sec. 61.31. One endorsement would be required for a pilot flying an airplane with retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller (commonly referred to as a "complex airplane"). A separate endorsement would be required to operate a high performance airplane, which would be redefined from "more than 200 hp" to "200 hp or more." This proposed requirement for separate endorsements, one for complex airplanes and one for high performance airplanes, could be achieved simultaneously in a complex airplane of 200 horsepower (hp) or more. Before giving the endorsements prescribed by Sec. 61.31, the instructor would be required to provide both ground and flight training in the airplane to ensure the pilot is proficient on the operation and systems of the airplane. In addition, Sec. 61.31 currently requires endorsements only for holders of private or commercial pilot certificates. The FAA proposes to extend this requirement to holders of ATP certificates because it is possible to earn the certificate in a low horsepower, non-complex, single-engine airplane. 27. Aircraft Type Specific Training In December 1991, the FAA issued a Special Certification Review Report on the Piper Malibu and Mirage airplanes. This review was a result of seven in- flight structural breakups involving Piper Malibu and Mirage airplanes. Although the review process did not discover any major design deficiencies, the special certification team that reviewed the airplane did make approximately 60 recommendations concerning design improvements and operational clarifications on the airplane. The Special Certification Review team consisted of FAA engineers, inspectors, and pilots who were tasked with reviewing the certification process, service history, and operation of the Malibu and Mirage airplanes. The report issued on the airplanes was reviewed by the FAA's Small Airplane Directorate and an action plan was developed. The plan included some possible airworthiness directives and recommendations for improved pilot training, policy revision, and rulemaking. Both the review team and Small Airplane Directorate concluded there is a need to improve the education and training of pilots in these high performance, complex airplanes. The FAA stated in the report that both the aviation community and the FAA have the responsibility for ensuring that pilots have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to operate these kinds of airplanes in normal, abnormal, and emergency situation. In response to this Special Certification Review of the Piper Malibu and Mirage, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 61.31 by adding a new paragraph that will require aircraft type specific training and a flight instructor endorsement for any aircraft that the Administrator has determined is necessary to ensure that pilots are adequately trained in normal, abnormal, and emergency situations on these kinds of airplanes. The FAA believes that pilots need this additional training to possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to operate these kinds of high performance, complex airplanes. The FAA proposes to require additional training and a flight instructor endorsement for a person to serve as a PIC of an aircraft that the Administrator has determined requires type specific training. 28. Human Factors The FAA proposes to introduce human factor training requirements for all levels of pilot certification. The training requirements would include aeronautical decision making (ADM) and judgment training for pilots at all certificate levels. Although research on aeronautical human factors has been underway for many years, these concepts represent relatively recent advances in training methodology. The traditional approach to training is to focus on technical aspects of aerodynamics, aircraft characteristics and systems, airspace, meteorology, and regulations. The presumption is that the flight crewmembers will integrate these subject areas to respond properly to the situations faced in actual flight conditions. The intent of adding the benefits of human factors training research to the pilot training regimen is to assist pilots in integrating available information and arriving at correct decisions. Based on this research, it is now feasible to systematically and explicitly study ADM and judgment, rather than relying on pilots to adopt these practices intuitively or relying completely on their experience. Much of this research is based on accident investigations that indicate that decision making processes contributed to or caused the accident. The FAA believes that pilots in the future will benefit from accident analysis and training methodologies designed to overcome lapses in judgment. 29. Aeronautical Decision Making and Judgment Training The training manual "Aeronautical Decision Making for Student and Private Pilots," prepared by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation for the FAA (Report No. DOT/FAA/PM-86/41), divides pilot activities into three basic categories. First are procedural activities, including management of the powerplant, fuel, navigation, communications, and other aspects of aircraft configuration. The second category is perceptual and motor activities, including aircraft control, and geographic orientation. The third category is decision making activities. The training manual covers self assessments of skill, knowledge, physical and psychological capabilities, hazard assessment, navigation planning, and flight priority assessment. The FAA has determined that aeronautical decision making is necessary, because flying involves a continuous stream of decisions about the crew, aircraft, environment, and operation. These decisions include pre-flight, "go/no-go" decisions, and in- flight decisions, which are designed to neutralize (by eliminating or reducing) risks in flight. Of the three pilot activity categories, decision making accounted for 51.6 percent of fatal accidents in an analysis of data for a 5-year period, according to the AOPA manual. The objective of the manual, and aeronautical decision making (ADM) and judgment training in general, is to teach pilots to avoid situations that require luck or skill beyond their capabilities, and to reduce the level of judgment-related accidents. With a solid base of conventional skills and knowledge, aeronautical decision making and judgment training can provide a structured approach to pilot reaction to event changes in flight. This training can be especially valuable to pilots with less experience to help confront the unexpected. These "event changes," in addition to preflight decisions, may include mechanical problems, new instructions from Air Traffic Control, or unexpected weather. These changes call for decisions in which poor judgment may entail a high degree of risk. A common example of the target of such training is the non-instrument-rated private pilot who either fails to obtain a complete weather briefing or unexpectedly encounters poor weather but nevertheless is inclined to continue a flight into instrument meteorological conditions. Aeronautical decision making and judgment training follow a three-pronged approach: ** Provide an analytical method for making decisions and evaluating risks. ** Address pilots' hazardous attitudes and substitute attitudes that promote good judgment. ** Address the need to overcome high st