Talk:Pilot certification in the United States

Early Training

I rember someone telling me that you can fly with an instructor and log hours before turning 16, some recomend starting at 14 or 14 and a half. Is there a minimum age to log hours? --Rcopley (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no minimum age to start instruction and log hours as a student pilot flying with an instructor. I think 14 is too young to start training; a Private certificate can take as little as a couple months to complete, or about 6 months if flying twice a week. I would suggest starting around age 16 (or ground school at age 15.5). Unless you want to stroke your ego and solo on your 16th birthday. CFI Joblio (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Source for category/class combinations

Can anyone identify the source where for the information that spells out each category/class recognized by the FAA? I'm working on a project where I need to know each category/class combo that exists, and I can't find any info anywhere in FAA publications. 72.191.163.46 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask, I've been looking for that very thing for quite some time now, and I just recently found it. 61.5 in the FARs "certificates issued under this part". Can be found at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=fe883b51b410ca933863b67eb94fd3d7&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.1.1.4&idno=14

24.22.24.208 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention of "license" in introduction

Could we clarify the reference to judicial action being required to revoke a 'license' ? Nowhere in 14 CFR is reference made to the term 'license' except in connection with a US driver's license, and a 'foreign pilot license' (presumably because of terminology used in ICAO Annex 1). The FAA has no basis for talking about any other sort of license. (weirpwoer (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)).

I agree. The last two sentences of the current opening contribute nothing to an understanding of Pilot certification in the United States. The sentences, if they are accurate, belong in articles about licensing and/or certification generally. I suppose they could be moved into a separate discussion of pilot "de-certification," which could, I think, reasonably appear within the scope of this article's topic. —SkipperPilot (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories of certificate

This section doesn't make sense. Certificates don't have categories, ratings do. My certificate isn't in the airplane category, I have a certificate with a rating for airplanes. Not quite sure how to fix this so I'm just complaining. :-) -- Captaindan 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've revised it slightly to use more precise terminology. How's it look now?--chris.lawson 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It still sounds weird to me so I clarified it a bit. Sorry for being an accuracy fascist. :-) -- Captaindan 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks even better now. Yay for collaboration. :) --chris.lawson 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Flight instruction (US)

It has been suggested that Flight instruction (US) be merged into this article or section.

Agree - that article is ugly and this article has all the same information. Joblio 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree - I will work on this as time allows ChadScott 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Completed! ChadScott 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding a certificate or rating...

The statement, "To obtain a certificate or add a rating, a pilot usually has to undergo..." confuses me. Under what situations would a pilot NOT have to undergo training with an instructor and log the relevant aeronautical experience to obtain an additional certificate or rating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChadScott (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Technically, for example, a private pilot can exercise the privledges of their license in a glider or light sport aircraft, and log time towards receiving those ratings, without having any kind of flight instruction first. Well, I'm not absolutely certain about gliders, but I am certain about sport pilot and LSA. I think the same might apply to adding an instrument rating, in that you can log instrument time (with a safety pilot) without having specific instrument instruction first. McNeight 19:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding, but I'm not sure how that answers the question. If you're exercising your private pilot privileges in a glider or light sport aircraft, you're not obtaining a certificate (you already have it and you did the training for it). If you get an instrument rating, you might log time towards it without instrument instruction, but you won't actually add the rating without the required dual hours. So how does the usually fit into there? —Cleared as filed. 19:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpret the use of usually is that you are not always required to go through the specific course of actions outlined in the paragraph. A better example would be someone with military flight experience. They do not have an FAA private pilot's licence, but they don't automatically have to go through the same set of actions that someone starting from scratch would. I can't cite any specific examples for pilots, but I've definitely heard of this applying to military aircraft mechanics who want to get their A&P. They show up at the local FAA offices with their proof of military training, and they are issued a licence based on that.

In the sport pilot instance, a candidate is still required to log 15 hours of flight instruction, three of which have to be within the 60 days prior to the practical test. So, even in the instance of a private (or higher) certificate applying for the sport pilot certificate, flight instruction is still required (three hours in this case). -- ChadScott 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, private pilot to sport pilot was a bad example. The way I read the EAA summary for current private pilots, all you need is a recreational pilot licence or higher and either a third class medical or a driver's licence. The EAA Private Pilot Operating as Sport Pilot FAQ also states that, since a private pilot has been trained to a higher standard than a sport pilot, you can keep your private pilot licence, "drop" your medical, and still legally fly as a sport pilot without having to acquire the additional certificate for sport pilot. McNeight 23:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should have clarified my reasoning here, but I thought it was a minor enough change. Anyway, my change centered on the fact that not every rating requires the applicant to take the written knowledge test. To use a common example, someone holding a private or commercial certificate with a single-engine land rating may add a multi-engine land rating without taking another knowledge test. The "must" is pretty strong language in this context, since there are many exceptions. Mexcellent 10:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at... the statement is that they must receive instruction and log the relevant experience. I think this is always true, so "must" is appropriate. In a single-engine to multi-engine example, no written is required, but you must have instruction, take a practical test, and log the relevant experience. ChadScott 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the full statement is that they must receive instruction, log the relevant experience, and take the three part exam (writtens, oral, practical). But, they don't always have to take the writtens to add a rating. Like I said, "must" just came across as a little strong in this instance. I realize that may be taking accurate to the point of being nitpicky, so I wouldn't have any problem with someone changing it back if it really bothers him/her. No biggie. Mexcellent 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another thought. I think I will go through and add embedded HTML citations to the relevant regulations, that way people may click on the links if they want to subject themselves to the extensive FAA verbiage. If they want every little detail, they can just click on through. I'll try it and see what you guys think. Mexcellent 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Sport pilot certificate

The article is US specific, and all of the rest of the certificates (Private Pilot Licence, Commercial Pilot Licence, etc.) are basically disambiguation pages that point to how pilots are licenced by country. McNeight 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree... I've merged portions of the Sport pilot article into this one... obviously still a work in progress. ChadScott 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Completed! ChadScott 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that a bit of Recreational Pilot rules slipped in here by mistake. As of July 10, 2009, Sport Pilots are still limited to 10,000 feet MSL, with no 2000 feet AGL exception. See 61.315(c)(11) for details. This was an error in an edit of December 13, 2008 that said that the limit was the max of the two altitudes. Unless someone can quote an exception to the rules that has been published by the FAA, it would seem best to revert that change back to simply 10,000 feet MSL. Alan Larson (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Certification requirements

Will the anon who keeps adding completely ridiculous B.S. like "must pass high school with physics and mathematics" and "Class I medical by approved doctor" to the Commercial section please explain him- or herself? There is absolutely NOTHING anywhere in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 61, that addresses such specific education requirements, and commercial pilots are *explicitly* required to hold only a second-class medical.--chris.lawson 02:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are only required to hold a 3rd class medical for any checkride, and no medical at all if the checkride is accomplished in an "approved flight training device". See preamble to COM and ATP/TR PTS 66.60.188.7 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Christopher

External Links

I think Pilot Journey (www.pilotjourney.com) really should be added to external links. The site has the largest, most up to date list of flight schools AND Pilot Journey's Discovery Flight program is now larger than Be a Pilots with over 1000 coupons issued each month. -Gary

Although this may be true, Gary, one of the Wikipedia guidelines says that Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion. If other users find the site useful, it should be added by them, not by you. Another reason I believe the link continues to reverted is that your site is your for-profit status (as opposed to AOPA's non-profit status) and filled with ads for RAA, FSA, ATP, etc. Wikipedia is not for promotion, it is for recording what people feel is important. I'm no expert on Wikipedia, this is just what I have observed. Cheers! Joblio 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. That's exactly why I reverted the link previously. Gary, your site is certainly a good reference, but since it's for-profit and obviously primarily geared toward driving business to for-profit CFR Part 141 operators, it's inappropriate as a link here. Lots of great sites get excluded this way, and that's the price we pay for neutrality. ChadScott 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

PilotOutlook.com has detailed information on these licenses. If you wish, you can add a link for it here - Rajat

Because you specifically own/administer the site, adding links to your site across these pages constitutes linkspam and is not tolerated on WP, because wikipedia is not a collection of links. If other users find that your site is noteworthy, it may become part of Wikipedia, but not until then. Editors around here are good at picking up self-promotion. Joblio 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"...In the United States..."

I see a lot of edits where people are adding the qualifier, "...in the United States..." This article *is* about how the certification structure, process, and qualifications are in the United States, so it's a redundant qualifier. So, stop doing that. :) ChadScott 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Multi-engine rating

Is there any possibility to aquire this rating fully or in parts with a Aircam plane [1]  ?

You'd have to have a chat with the local FSDO about it, but on the surface, I can't see much argument against allowing it.--chris.lawson 01:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe controllable pitch propellers are required for a multiengine rating training plane 217.86.43.171 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the FARs about such a requirement, nor have I ever heard of such a requirement from any examiners, FAA inspectors, or instructors. Where a person might run into a problem, however, is with FAR 61.45 and 61.109. Allow me to explain.

61.109 covers aeronautical experience requirements for private pilots. One of those requirements is instruction received. In order to receive instruction in an Aircam, you need to find an instructor who is willing and qualified to give instruction in it. Multi-engine instructors are required to have five hours of PIC time in each make and model of multi-engine airplane in which they provide instruction. As far as I know, the FAA considers each homebuilt to be its own individual model, so you'd have to find an instructor who was willing to learn the Aircam and who you could hand the keys to for at least five hours. (It'd be nice if said instructor had prior Aircam time, but you probably can't be too picky in that department.)

Once you took care of that, if you wanted to take the checkride in the Aircam, you'd need to find a qualified examiner who was willing to do the ride in one. That may be damn near impossible, for two reasons. One, there probably aren't a lot of examiners out there who have Aircam time, and two, examiners are required to give five checkrides every 12 months in each specific make and model in order to remain current as examiners in that make and model. Even if my assumption above is wrong (that each homebuilt model is not individual to the builder), finding an examiner who gives five rides a year in Aircams is likely impractical, if not downright impossible.

You could always take the checkride in a different aircraft, but that'd cost quite a bit of money to get proficient and train for the ride.

In short, there's nothing specifically excluding it in the regs, but if you're trying to get a multi rating on the cheap, there are certainly better (and easier) ways to do it. Honestly, you'd probably be better off getting the rating in something like a Piper Apache or Seminole and then build the Aircam when you're done.--chris.lawson 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Just found an article about the history of this plane: Leza-Lockwood Company 84.173.213.112 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

vision and age

Hi... I am 16 years old and i wish to know if i am able to be a pilot. I wear glases... My dioptry is: -0.5 on both eyes

correctable to 20/20 must be 17 years of age to be a private pilot. Then go get a medical!

Your vision has to be corrected to at least 20/40 (20/20 if you want to fly for hire). You can begin taking lessons at any age, but you must be 17 by the time you complete your training and fly with an examiner to earn your actual certificate. -- ChadScott 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical Certificate Requirement Correction

Private pilot only need medical cert class 3? i think the correct one is class 2 and for commercial pilot, medical cert class 1 is needed.

for color deficiency people, is it possible to get medical class one? if according to this page, class two medical cert also can get commercial pilot licence?? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.17.210 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, medical certificates are only required for certain privileges, not for specific certificates. A third class is required for private pilot privileges, a second class is required for commercial privileges, and a first class is required for Airline Transport Pilot privileges. In other words, an ATP can have a third class medical, but he/she would only be allowed to exercise private pilot privileges. As for color deficiency, all certificate classes can be held by color deficient pilots, but they will carry a restriction reading, "not valid for night flight or by color signal control." This generally keeps color deficient pilots from working professionally because they can only fly during daylight hours. There are many jobs for commercial pilots that only require flight during daylight hours and all of those are available to color deficient pilots. I hope that helps. -- ChadScott 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that actually flying as the pilot of a plane carrying passengers for hire with an air carrier requires a Class 1 medical. Given the discussion here I am withdrawing my edit until I know for certain.Es330td (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Found it. 61.23Es330td (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I pulled this back out as it's redundant to later in the article (in 1st class medical). Also, earning an ATP has nothing to do with any particular medical certificate, so its not even relevant in that section, anyway. -- ChadScott (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Type rating

The type rating article redirected here for no obvious reason, so I've started it as a seperate article now. BabyNuke 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your type rating article addresses an international audience, rather than the type rating verbiage here; I think it's fine and could even benefit from some expansion. Jim Ward (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Medical Certificate

The medical certificate example indicates the holder is 5 years old, a little young to be flying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.140.137 (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By my math, John Doe would have been—at the time of the exam—two months shy of 39 years of age. —SkipperPilot (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ATP / Instrument

Correct me if I am wrong, but an ATP does not require an instrument rating. An unrestricted commercial (with instrument) is required to take the ATP ride, but there is no "ATP instrument rating". In addition, it is probably worth noting that a large emphasis of the ATP is instrument / cross-country operations and that certain categories (LTA, glider, weight-shift) have no rating above commercial. 66.60.188.7 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Christopher

I updated the article earlier to indicate that there's no explicit instrument rating for an ATP; rather, it is implied. I'll look this up later, but I believe that ATP privileges apply only to Airplane and Powered lift categories and the Helicopter class. A substantial amount of the ATP Airplane written, oral and practical tests relate to instrument flying; it's a safe bet that the same is true for Powered lift and Helicopter. Jim Ward (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CFI (Certified Flight Instructor)

Why isn't there a section for CFI under the "Pilot Certificates" heading?

• Comment - The CFI certificate is not a pilot certificate. It confers no pilot privileges and doesn't technically belong in an article titled "Pilot certification…". Jim Ward (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If appropriate, it would look something like this:

Certified Flight Instructor (CFI)

Although usually placed between Commercial and ATP certificates, the CFI is not a prerequisite to an ATP. An ATP can, however, be used as a prerequisite to a CFI.

• Comment - I'm not sure that I understand your remark about the CFI/ATP relationship. They're wholly independent. What did I miss? Jim Ward (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to hold a Certified Flight Instructor certificate a pilot must hold at least an unrestricted Commercial certificate (Commercial with Instrument rating) in the appropriate category and class.

• Comment - The above isn't correct. See 61.183. Jim Ward (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Flight instructor candidates must pass a written test for each category and class, just like any other rating (i.e. "Flight Instructor - Airplane Single Engine Land"). In addition, flight instructors must pass the "Fundamentals of Instructing" (FOI) written test at least once. In lieu of the FOI, an accredited teaching credential at 7th grade or higher or a professorship at an accredited university may be substituted.

• Comment - only partially correct. Again, see 61.183, et seq. Jim Ward (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On the CFI check ride, the applicant is required to "teach" (demonstrate to the examiner how they would teach) those maneuvers required for the private and commercial certificate. In addition, CFIs (for single engine airplanes) are required to demonstrate several additional maneuvers, such as cross control stalls. Finally, the CFI candidate must have logged actual training in spins, including the actual spinning of an aircraft. CFI is the only certificate for which the applicant must have actually spun an aircraft (as opposed to talking about it).

By default, a CFI can only instruct in VMC. To instruct in IMC a Certified Flight Instructor - Instrument (CFI-I or just "double I") must be obtained. The CFI-I places significant emphasis on positive aircraft control and controlling student mistakes while in IMC.

• Comment - Technically not correct: a CFI who does not hold an instrument instructor rating, but holds an instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate, can train a student in IMC and even record dual received time in that student's logbook. Such a CFI may not, however, endorse that student for an instrument rating or a type rating that excludes a VFR-Only limitation. (I'm not going to argue the practicality of that.) Jim Ward (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Some categories of aircraft (such as lighter than air) do not have a CFI (or ATP) rating. Instead, any appropriately rated commercial pilot can engage in flight training and provide log book endorsements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.188.7 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 66.60.188.7 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Christopher

Lead section overhaul

I've started to overhaul the General structure of certification section to bring it up to date with 2009 regulations, simplify the language, eliminate redundancy and try to clarify the relationships between privilege level, category, class, type and instrument ratings. There's a lot more work to do, including making citations more articulate and correcting stale references to certain ultralights not requiring pilot certificates; this changed upon the advent of LSA & the Sport Pilot certificate. Further, subsequent sections contain redundant and sometimes stale information requiring attention as well. I'll get back to it eventually, but if you're feeling inspired, please have at it. Jim Ward (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)