Talk:Pilot certification in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Categories of certificate 2 Merge with Flight instruction (US) 3 Adding a certificate or rating... 4 Merge with Sport pilot certificate 5 Certification requirements 6 External Links 7 "...In the United States..." 8 Multi-engine rating

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "...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)

[edit] 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)

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