Transitioning to a Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot
Rating

	151. What if I already hold a flight instructor certificate issued
under 14 CFR part 61 and want to exercise the privileges of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?	§61.429  May I
exercise the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport
pilot rating if I hold a flight instructor certificate with another
rating?

153. What if I am only a registered ultralight instructor with an
FAA-recognized ultralight organization?	§61.52 Use of aeronautical
experience obtained in ultralight vehicles

§61.431  Are there special provisions for obtaining a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating for persons who are registered
ultralight instructors with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization?

155. What if I’ve never provided flight or ground training in an
aircraft or an ultralight vehicle?

Subpart K—Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating establishes all
requirements

Pilot Logbooks

	171. How do I log training time and aeronautical experience?	§61.51
Pilot logbooks

173. How do I log pilot-in-command flight time?	§61.51  Pilot logbooks

175. May I use training time and aeronautical experience logged as a
sport pilot toward a higher certificate or rating issued under 14 CFR
part 61?	§61.51  Pilot logbooks

§61.52  Use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles

177. May I credit training time and aeronautical experience logged as an
ultralight operator toward a sport pilot certificate?	§61.52  Use of
aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles

179. May I use aeronautical experience I got as the operator of an
ultralight vehicle to meet the requirements for a higher certificate or
rating issued under 14 CFR part 61?	§61.52  Use of aeronautical
experience obtained in ultralight vehicles

Recent Flight Experience Requirements for a Sport Pilot Certificate or a
Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating

	191. What recent flight experience requirements must I meet for a sport
pilot certificate?	Existing §61.57 contains the same requirements as
the proposed rule.

193. What are the flight review requirements for a sport pilot
certificate?	Existing §61.56 contains the same requirements as the
proposed rule.

195. How do I renew my flight instructor certificate?	§61.425  How do I
renew my flight instructor certificate?

197. What must I do if my flight instructor certificate with a sport
pilot rating expires?	§61.427  What must I do if my flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating expires?

Ground Instructor Privileges

	211. What are the eligibility requirements for a ground instructor
certificate?	§61.213  Eligibility requirements

213. What additional privileges do I have if I hold a ground instructor
certificate with a basic ground instructor rating?

§61.215 Ground instructor privileges

215. What additional privileges do I have if I hold a ground instructor
certificate with an advanced ground instructor rating?	§61.215 Ground
instructor privileges

V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions

	Under Section 15 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA proposed to require sport
pilot certificate holders; student pilots operating within the
limitations of a sport pilot certificate; and higher-rated pilots who
elect to exercise only sport pilot privileges to hold and possess either
a current and valid U.S. driver’s license or a current and valid
airman medical certificate issued under part 67.  These provisions, as
revised in the final rule, are located under §§61.3, 61.23, and 61.303
in the operating rules where medical certificate requirements for all
pilots are found.

Under Section 111 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA proposed to require
individuals exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating and acting as pilot in command of a
light-sport aircraft other than a glider or balloon, to hold and possess
a current and valid U.S. driver’s license or a current and valid
airman medical certificate issued under part 67.  These provisions, as
revised in the final rule, are located under §§61.3 and 61.23 in the
operating rules where medical certificate requirements for all flight
instructors are found.

	Under Section 17 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA set forth circumstances under
which a medical deficiency would preclude operators from exercising
sport pilot privileges.  In the final rule, these provisions are located
under §61.53 where medical deficiency provisions are found.  These
provisions are also found in §§61.23 and 61.303.

	Comments received on the proposed medical provisions were mainly
supportive.  A minority of commenters opposed the rule.  Several
commenters, however, raised questions or offered other alternatives.
Some requested that the FAA extend sport pilot medical provisions to
recreational, and even private, pilots.  A few commenters recommended
minor editorial changes.

The FAA has reconsidered the circumstances in which a current and valid
U.S. driver’s license should be allowed in lieu of a valid airman
medical certificate and has made substantive revisions to the medical
provisions in the final rule.  These revisions are based on the FAA’s
concern that pilots whose airman medical certificates have been denied,
suspended, or revoked or whose Authorization for Special Issuance of a
Medical Certificate (Authorization) has been withdrawn would be allowed
to operate light-sport aircraft other than gliders and balloons under
the proposed rule.  Therefore, possession of a current and valid U.S.
driver’s license alone is not enough to dispel this concern.  For this
reason, this final rule permits using a current and valid U.S.
driver’s license as evidence of medical qualification based on certain
conditions.  If a person has applied for an airman medical certificate,
that person must have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a
third-class airman medical certificate.  If a person has held an airman
medical certificate, that person’s most recently issued airman medical
certificate must not have been revoked or suspended.  If a person has
been granted an Authorization, that Authorization must not have been
withdrawn.

These provisions apply only to persons who have held or applied for an
airman medical certificate or who have been granted an Authorization.
It does not require the pilot of a light-sport aircraft to apply for an
airman medical certificate.  The words “most recent application”
refer to the latest medical application that is in on file with the FAA
and on which action was taken.  In addition, the words “most recently
issued airman medical certificate” refer to the latest airman medical
certificate on file with the FAA.

In addition, the FAA has determined that the rule should explicitly
provide that a pilot may not use a current and valid U.S. driver’s
license in lieu of a valid airman medical certificate if the pilot knows
or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make that
person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.  This
reiterates the requirement of §61.53, but ensures that a person using a
driver’s license to exercise sport pilot privileges focuses on it.
This does not require a pilot to qualify for an airman medical
certificate, but if an individual has any question about his or her
medical capacity to fly, that person should consult his or her personal
physician.  The individual still has the responsibility to determine
whether he or she meets the provisions of §61.53.

	An applicant for a student pilot certificate seeking sport pilot
privileges may be asked whether:

He or she was found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class
airman medical certificate (if he or she recently applied for an airman
medical certificate).

His or her most recently issued airman medical certificate has been
suspended or revoked.

His or her most recent Authorization has been withdrawn.

The applicant may also be asked whether he or she knows or has reason to
know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to
operate a light sport aircraft in a safe manner.  If the applicant
answers “yes” to any of these questions, the applicant will be
reminded that while he or she may be issued a student pilot certificate,
he or she may not use a driver’s license as evidence of medical
qualification.

	By incorporating these provisions, the FAA confirms that persons who
would exercise sport pilot privileges must consider their medical
fitness before operating.  If a person should not be exercising airman
privileges for medical reasons, that person should not be conducting
sport pilot privileges unless and until it is safe for that person to do
so.

Comments that supported the proposed medical provisions:

The majority of the comments received on the proposed medical provisions
were supportive.  Supporting commenters regarded these proposed sections
as the most critical part of the action and stated that if the FAA
publishes a final rule with more restrictive medical requirements, they
would withdraw support for the entire proposal.  They stated that using
a current and valid U.S. driver’s license as proof of general medical
qualification would permit older pilots no longer qualifying for an
airman medical certificate to continue flying.  In addition, commenters
indicated that operators of light-sport aircraft are less likely to
jeopardize the safety of surrounding individuals than motorists driving
vehicles on public roadways.  Commenters indicated that driving a motor
vehicle is often more demanding and stressful than piloting an aircraft
and that the overall incidence of crashes related to medical
incapacitation is very low.  According to commenters, most pilots are
conscientious enough to take their own health into consideration when
making the decision on whether to fly.

	Numerous supporters of proposed medical provisions mentioned the
financial and time burden placed on pilots to maintain an airman medical
certificate, noting specifically the backlog for special-issuance
medical certificates.  Commenters stated that many pilots cannot obtain
a third-class airman medical certificate and that some pilots, while
medically capable of flying, cannot afford the medical testing needed to
maintain an airman medical certificate.

	Many commenters viewed this proposal as a means to allow individuals
who have lost their third-class airman medical certificates to operate
light-sport aircraft.  Commenters identifying themselves as senior
citizens commonly shared this view and welcome the opportunity to return
to flying after being unable to obtain an airman medical certificate for
many years.

Other comments in support may be summarized generally as follows:

The FAA airman medical certificate is aimed at more stressful tasks like
those performed by commercial pilots who often fly IFR.

FAA airman medical certificates do not provide a guarantee about how a
person will feel 2 hours later and do not prevent in-flight health
hazards.

Sport pilots, in particular, do not have that “must get there”
attitude.

As long as the process of §61.53 remains in place, there is no reason
to require a non-commercial pilot to hold an airman medical certificate.

The additional requirement of a driver’s license covers the increase
in risk that the public may perceive and is appropriate for the weight
and speed of light-sport aircraft.

The current regime probably leads pilots to avoid doctors and treatments
for certain medical conditions (e.g., depression), thus decreasing
safety.

FAA response to supporting comments

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA believes that the level of health
evidenced by a current and valid U.S. driver’s license is a necessary,
minimum prerequisite to safely operate light-sport aircraft other than
gliders and balloons.  The FAA chose to use state driver standards
because they require a minimum level of health to be met before
issuance.  The FAA recognizes that these standards are sufficient
minimum standards for drivers operating their automobiles at high speeds
and in close proximity to other automobiles.  They also are sufficient
as minimum standards for pilots of light-sport aircraft other than
gliders and balloons, absent evidence of a medical condition that would
make the pilot otherwise unsafe to fly.  Further, a state driver’s
license may be revoked or suspended for certain offenses that also may
impact the license holder’s ability and fitness to fly a light-sport
aircraft, thus providing an added level of protection.  If the U.S.
driver’s license of a person holding a sport pilot certificate or
rating (who does not possess a valid airman medical certificate) is
revoked or rescinded for any offense--including, among others, substance
abuse, excessive speeding, careless and reckless operation of a vehicle,
numerous traffic violations--the individual will not be able to exercise
sport pilot privileges until the license is reinstated or the person
obtains a valid airman medical certificate.

While pilots of light-sport aircraft will be required to hold and
possess at least a current and valid U.S. driver’s license, meeting
this requirement alone does not equate to fitness to fly.  The FAA
cannot over-emphasize the crucial responsibility placed on those
exercising sport pilot privileges to carefully consider fitness to fly
before every flight.  The FAA has always understood that pilots’ own
judgment regarding their fitness to fly is their most basic and
important safety responsibility and that no level of airman medical
certification will ever alleviate this responsibility.  Those who would
exercise sport pilot privileges must understand that, by taking control
of an aircraft as pilot in command, they have made an unequivocal
declaration as to their belief in their fitness to fly.  To ensure that
pilots focus on this responsibility, the final rule, as adopted,
specifically provides that a pilot may not use a current and valid U.S.
driver’s license as evidence of medical qualification if he or she
knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make
that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

The FAA believes that these minimum standards constitute only one aspect
of the overall determination as to fitness to fly light-sport aircraft.
The possession of a current and valid U.S. driver’s license is not in
and of itself sufficient to establish the fitness of the pilot.
Therefore, it must be clear that a U.S. driver’s license is not, for
the purposes of this action, an FAA airman medical certificate.  The FAA
cautions that reference to a sport pilot “driver’s license
medical” should be avoided because a current and valid U.S. driver’s
license does not become a sport pilot certificate holder’s airman
medical certificate.

Moreover, the FAA is concerned that a number of commenters believe that
the proposed rule would have presented an avenue for pilots who have
been denied an airman medical certificate under part 67 to continue to
fly.  The FAA believes that most pilots who become aware through an
airman medical examination of a condition that could prevent them from
flying safely would not continue to fly.  The commenters reveal,
however, that a number of pilots might not give sufficient weight to the
evidence of their medical conditions in deciding whether they are fit to
fly.  The FAA has determined, therefore, that the best course of action
for aviation safety is to not allow a current and valid U.S. driver’s
license as evidence of medical qualification if a person’s most recent
application for an airman medical certificate has been denied or most
recently issued airman medical certificate has been suspended or
revoked.

The possession of a current and valid U.S. driver’s license in no way
constitutes a certification by the FAA that the holder of that license
is fit to fly light-sport aircraft-that certification is provided by the
pilot alone.  It merely allows that the holder has met minimum FAA
requirements and is permitted to operate a light-sport aircraft subject
to the requirements of part 61 and the pilot’s own determination of
his or her fitness to fly.

Comments that supported the U.S. driver’s license proposal for
ultralight operations but not for more complex light-sport aircraft
operations

One commenter agreed that a U.S. driver’s license is acceptable for
ultralights and powered parachutes, but indicated that “all pilots of
powered flight (single-engine aircraft) should undergo initial and
periodic medical examinations.”  According to this commenter, since a
third-class airman medical certificate is the current FAA standard for
general aviation, it should be the same standard for sport pilots flying
within the single-engine category.

One commenter had no objection to those exercising sport pilot
privileges being able to use a U.S. driver’s license to verify health.
 According to this commenter, this proposal can benefit those who cannot
pass an FAA medical examination for whatever reason, but the commenter
points out that a certain level of physical ability is required for safe
flight.  This commenter has compiled data that indicates that medical
issues are virtually no problem when considering ultralight flight and
therefore it strongly objects to a medical physical requirement for
those pilots and instructors.  Pilot medical data specifically relating
to the operation of the significantly heavier and faster aircraft (up to
130 mph) as now proposed by the FAA, however, is not so clear.
Therefore, the commenter could not comment on the safety of allowing
pilots of heavier, faster aircraft which fly over congested areas and
into controlled airspace to fly without a medical examination.

FAA response to commenters who supported the proposal in part

	Commenters seem to be suggesting that the FAA adopt separate sets of
standards; a two-tiered approach for this rulemaking action that would
require airman medical certification for certain sport pilot certificate
holders.  The FAA did not propose such an approach because, by doing so,
the regulations basically would remain as they are today.  By
establishing new rules and creating a new sport pilot certificate the
FAA intends to allow for limited operations in a safe manner that will
bring pilots operating ultralight-like aircraft into a more uniform
regulatory system.  Because the commenters do not describe how the FAA
could implement their proposals other than to essentially maintain
current regulatory parameters, the FAA could not consider them.

Comments that opposed the proposed medical provisions

One medical organization commented that its general membership was
“overwhelmingly against” the NPRM’s recommended use of a
driver’s license.  According to this organization, the FAA desire for
not “creating a significant financial barrier” is without merit with
respect to the airman medical certificate.  The organization indicated
that a 2001 survey of airmen medical examiners with at least a 66%
response rate indicates the average cost of a third-class medical is
$66.69.  Annualized for those under 40, the cost is $22.23 and for those
over 40, $33.35, which can hardly be considered a financial burden.

In addition, this organization stated that the NPRM’s conclusion that
driving fast in close proximity to other automobiles is safe and
achieved by the varied medical clearances for driver’s licenses, as
applied across states, is misleading and supporting statistics are
glaringly absent.  Using only fatal crashes where a driver was
reportedly “ill, passed out/blacked out” as a percent of total fatal
crashes for just the year 2000 shows 0.9%.  This percentage goes up if
other driver factors such as medication reaction, not using medication,
or other physical impairment are also considered.  In 1 year, this
figure is nearly five times that of the NPRM-quoted 7-year period where
an airman medical certificate is required in aviation.  According to
this organization, “[t]he FAA’s belief that the medical standards
that permit an individual to drive…provides an adequate level of
safety to operate…aircraft is not supported.  Actually the opposite is
true in that the numbers indicate an unreasonable risk to aviation
safety for any level of piloting.”

FAA response to comments that opposed the proposed medical provisions

The FAA concurs that, in the case of some applicants for airman medical
certification, the cost of an airman medical examination is not
cost-prohibitive.  If the AME directs an applicant to undergo further
testing beyond a standard physical, however, the cost to obtain an
airman medical certificate can become more expensive.  Under this
action, individuals will have to obtain an airman medical certificate if
they do not have or do not want to obtain a U.S. driver’s license.
The intent of this action, however, is not to recommend a practical fee
or to analyze the cost factors for obtaining an airman medical
certificate; it is to assure that, for sport pilot operations, an
applicant can meet a basic level of health.  The 2001 survey the
commenter referenced was a compilation of information obtained from
3,800 individuals over a 4-year period who filled out a questionnaire at
FAA-sponsored airman medical examiners periodic training seminars about
their familiarity with and use of the Federal Air Surgeon’s Bulletin.
It was not specifically a questionnaire aimed at performing an analysis
of AME fees.

The FAA does not intend to imply that driving an automobile and piloting
an aircraft are exactly similar or that driving fast and in close
proximity to other automobiles is safe.  The FAA makes the comparison to
driving to indicate only that, when compared to sport pilot operations,
driving can be more stressful and can require more skill sometimes than
flying a light-sport aircraft.  For the NPRM, the FAA reviewed accident
data relating to the medical condition(s) of a pilot not required to
hold an airman medical certificate as a causal factor in general
aviation accidents and not accident data relating to a driver’s
medical condition as causal factors in fatal automobile accidents.
Therefore, the FAA cannot respond to the commenter regarding the 0.9%
rate of total fatal automobile crashes in 2000 relating to a certain
medical condition of the driver.  Further, the FAA does not have enough
accidents related to medical causes to be able to assign a yearly
accident rate for fatal general aviation accidents.  It should be noted,
as stated in the NPRM, that the NTSB will investigate any accidents or
incidents involving certificated sport pilots, light-sport aircraft, or
persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot.  The FAA anticipates
working closely with the NTSB to analyze light-sport aircraft accidents
suspected of being caused by a pilot’s medical condition.

General opposing comments

Opposing commenters also addressed the following:

The ease with which a U.S. driver’s license may be obtained in most
states.

The variation in standards among the states.

The lack of serious medical testing during the application process for a
U.S. driver’s license.

Inconsistent and inadequate vision tests.

The process for obtaining a U.S. driver’s license differs from that
involved with obtaining an airman medical certificate and that
driver’s license medical standards and FAA airman medical standards
differ.

The FAA did not enact its 1995 proposal to allow recreational pilots to
exercise privileges without an airman medical certificate for many
reasons, including safety concerns, and there have been no substantial
changes in need or requirements for safety since that ruling.

FAA response to general opposing comments:  The FAA reiterates that the
intent of this action is not to reduce safety or to encourage those
experiencing medical problems, including vision problems, to exercise
any type of sport pilot operation.  Individuals with medical conditions
that would prevent them from flying safely must not exercise sport pilot
privileges.  Additionally, individuals using a driver’s license to
exercise sport pilot privileges whose most recent application for an
airman medical certificate has been denied or whose most recently issued
airman medical certificate has been suspended or revoked must not
exercise sport pilot privileges.

This action requires a basic level of health for sport pilot operations,
if that basic level cannot be met then sport pilot privileges must not
be exercised.  The intent of this action is not to encourage those who
have medical conditions or who may develop a medical condition(s) to
become lax about their health and take chances piloting a light-sport
aircraft.  As it does with all pilots, the FAA recommends that persons
holding a sport pilot certificate or rating consult with their private
physician routinely and especially if they have any indication of
adverse health.  The FAA recommends routine vision screening.

The FAA acknowledges that the process to obtain and maintain an airman
medical certificate versus that to obtain and maintain a U.S. driver’s
license is different and that U.S. driver’s license standards vary
from state to state. Even though the process for applying for and
renewing a U.S. driver’s license varies throughout the United States,
U.S. issuing authorities require applicants to verify some basic level
of health on their various driver’s license applications.  Each state
requires an applicant to meet minimum vision standards.  Many
authorities require applicants to reveal any medical condition(s) that
might preclude them from obtaining a U.S. driver’s license in that
jurisdiction.  If any of these applicants affirm having received
treatment for a medical condition (e.g., stroke or paralysis, brain
disorder, heart disorder, seizures) on an application, a licensed
physician must further evaluate whether that person should be allowed to
drive a motor vehicle.  The same is true for an individual who applies
for an airman medical certificate who indicates that he or she has a
medical condition.  That individual’s Aviation Medical Examiner (AME)
must further evaluate whether that person should be issued an airman
medical certificate.  Individuals who are not medically fit to operate a
motor vehicle should not exercise the privileges of a sport pilot
certificate.  It is true that an individual who holds either a U.S.
driver’s license or an airman medical certificate could choose to
operate a motor vehicle or conduct sport pilot operations when not
medically fit to do so.  If sport pilots choose to do so, however, they
are violating not only the terms of their U.S. driver’s license or
airman medical certificate but also the long-standing provisions of
§61.53 that pertain to prohibition on operations during medical
deficiency.  Sport pilots using a driver’s license must also comply
with the provisions of §§61.3, 61.23, and 61.303.

The FAA rescinded its 1995 proposal to allow recreational pilots to
self-evaluate under the provisions of  §61.53 because it had no
experience allowing recreational pilots, who may pilot more
sophisticated and faster aircraft, to fly without FAA airman medical
certification.  Conversely, the FAA has had many years of experience
allowing pilots of what are considered ultralight vehicles today to fly
without medical certification and, based on this experience, believes
this rule provides an equivalent level of safety for those being brought
into compliance.  Validating this experience is the accident data that
the FAA has received under the terms of exemptions that have been
granted to operate a two-seat ultralight vehicle for training purposes.

Comments that favored extending sport pilot medical provisions to other
pilots

Several commenters favored extending proposed sport pilot medical
provisions to pilots with higher-level certificates.  These commenters
contended that the same reasoning and justification proposed for sport
pilots should apply to other pilots, recreational pilots in particular,
who are subject to many of the same limitations such as those on
carrying passengers, use of aircraft not having fixed gear, night
flight, and visibility restrictions.  It is suggested that the FAA
review sport pilot data over time to provide for private pilots to use
the sport pilot medical provisions that will be adopted under this rule.

According to commenters it has been adequately proven that existing
medicine cannot predict heart attacks or strokes, so elimination of the
FAA airman medical examination would have no adverse affect on safety.

FAA response to comments that favored extending sport pilot medical
provisions to other pilots

The medical provisions the FAA proposed under this action were proposed
for sport pilot operations only.  The FAA has never considered expanding
these provisions nor would it be within the scope of this action to
consider doing so.  The FAA agrees with commenters that it must gain
experience with sport pilot medical provisions.

Commenters’ general remarks and questions about proposed medical
provisions

Some commenters who expressed support for the proposal in principle and
for the option of a U.S. driver’s license over an airman medical
certificate raised the following issues:

Question:  What “known medical conditions” would prevent a person
from exercising sport pilot privileges?

Response:  The FAA has not established a list of disqualifying medical
conditions under §61.53.  That could prevent a person from relying on a
driver’s license as the sole evidence of medical qualification.  If a
person chooses to exercise sport pilot privileges using an airman
medical certificate, the FAA’s disqualifying medical conditions set
forth under part 67 apply.  The ability to certify no known medical
conditions becomes a matter between the pilot and his or her AME.  If an
individual’s most recent application for an airman medical certificate
has been denied after examination by an AME, that person would not be
able to use a driver’s license as evidence of medical qualification.

If an individual chooses to medically qualify for light-sport aircraft
operations using a current and valid U.S. driver’s license, then the
restrictions and limitations listed on the U.S. driver’s license
apply, as do those imposed by judicial or administrative order for the
operation of a motor vehicle.  The determination as to whether a pilot
has a medical condition that would make him or her unable to operate the
aircraft in a safe manner is the sole responsibility of the pilot.  The
ability to certify no known medical conditions that would prohibit the
safe operation of an aircraft is a matter about which a pilot should
consult his or her personal physician.

Those experiencing medical symptoms that would prevent them from safely
exercising the privileges of their sport pilot certificate, or that
raise a reasonable concern, however, cannot claim to have no known
medical deficiencies.

The FAA acknowledges that those interested only in exercising sport
pilot privileges may not seek airman medical certification or may allow
their current airman medical certificate to expire.  This is acceptable
under this rule.  Depending on the FAA’s experience under this rule,
however, it could choose to establish a list of disqualifying medical
conditions or even revert to requiring airman medical certification if
it becomes apparent that those exercising sport pilot privileges are not
exercising reasonable judgment with regard to their medical fitness to
fly.

Question:  Is the special issuance of a medical certificate under
§67.401 considered a denial of an application for an airman medical
certificate?

Response:  No.  A pilot who has received a special issuance of a medical
certificate may also exercise sport pilot privileges using a U.S.
driver’s license, provided he or she is medically fit to fly.

Remark:  The proposed medical provisions discriminate against the
following:

Those who live in rural Alaska who do not drive and therefore cannot
take advantage of the option of using a driver’s license.

Those who hold foreign pilot certificates or foreign driver’s
licenses.

Those who could qualify for a third-class airman medical certificate but
do not choose or otherwise have the need, desire, or money to have a
U.S. driver’s license.

Those pilots other than sport pilots who are required to hold an FAA
airman medical certificate.

It is not the FAA’s intention to discriminate against anyone or to
disadvantage those who do not have or cannot obtain a current and valid
U.S. driver’s license.  This action provides an alternate means of
compliance with full FAA airman medical certification for sport pilot
certificate holders only and for those who are able to obtain and
maintain a current and valid U.S. driver’s license only.  Standards
for those who wish to maintain higher-level pilot certificates and
ratings remain unaffected by this action; therefore this action cannot
be considered discriminatory against them because operations they would
conduct do not fall within the scope of this action.

The FAA understands that there may be individuals in the United States
who may have difficulty traveling to their licensing entities to acquire
a U.S. driver’s license.  The FAA notes that it may be similarly
difficult for some individuals to obtain an FAA airman medical
certificate.  While the FAA appreciates that requiring those holding a
sport pilot certificate or rating to hold and possess either a current
and valid U.S. driver’s license or a valid airman medical certificate
does place a disproportionately higher burden on those individuals who
live some distance from the appropriate certification resources, no
regulation can have an entirely uniform effect on all entities subject
to its requirements and limitations.  The FAA believes that these
minimum standards are necessary and that it would not be in the interest
of safety to alter them because they may place a slightly greater
hardship on certain individuals over others.

Because this rule requires a current and valid U.S. driver’s license,
a foreign driver’s license would not be acceptable.  Because of the
events of September 11, 2001 and ongoing harmonization efforts, guidance
on issuing U.S. pilot certificates and airman medical certificates based
on foreign certificates continues to evolve.  Current guidance can be
found in FAA Order 8700.1 “General Aviation Inspector’s Handbook,”
chapter 29, “Issue of a U.S. Pilot Certificate on the Basis of a
Foreign-Pilot License.”

Remark:  Many drivers operate motor vehicles while taking narcotics and
tranquilizers even when counseled not to do so.  Also, individuals who
have been advised by their physician not to drive due to a medical
condition may continue to drive anyway.

Response:  The FAA acknowledges that people may choose to continue to
drive and even fly against medical advice or while taking certain
medications.  What is more, some may not even consult with a private
physician about a medical condition or before taking medication.
Unfortunately, there are those who will take chances and any action the
FAA may take would not dissuade these individuals.  Further, this
situation can apply not only to drivers and pilots, but to operators of
any kind of transport vehicle, machinery, or equipment.  Fortunately,
however, aviation accident statistics rarely indicate medical factors as
probable cause.  This would seem to indicate that, for the most part,
pilots do not take chances flying when they know they are not medically
fit to do so.

Question:  Why are the requirements for operating light-sport aircraft
higher than requirements to operate gliders?

Response:  Today’s technological advances in light-sport aircraft call
for a set of standards that could no longer be served by those set forth
for balloons and gliders.  The FAA is adopting this rule to increase
safety in the light-sport aircraft community by closing gaps in existing
regulations and accommodating new advances in technology.  Therefore,
requirements for light-sport aircraft and sport pilot certificate
holders are necessarily more rigid than those for glider operations.
The FAA believes that a permanent and appropriate level of regulation is
necessary.  Because the FAA has added more requirements for
certification and training for light-sport aircraft, it also determined
that some medical provisions for sport pilot certificate holders would
be necessary.  While airman medical certification is optional for
light-sport operations, some minimum level of proof of general good
health is warranted.  The FAA determined that the ability to meet the
medical requirements necessary to obtain a U.S. driver’s license would
be appropriate.

Question:  Can deaf individuals obtain sport pilot certificate?

Response:  Yes.  Deaf individuals are eligible to apply for pilot
certificates.  Deaf individuals interested in piloting should consult
the FAA website at   HYPERLINK "http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/deaffaq.htm"
 http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/deaffaq.htm .

Question:  Will flight instructors and employees of flight schools be
required to adhere to DOT drug-testing policies?

Response:  For sport pilot operations, flight instructors and employees
of flight schools are not considered “employees who must be tested”
as defined under part 121, appendix I.  Flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating acting as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft other
than a glider or balloon, however, must adhere to the provisions of
existing §§61.15, 91.17, and 91.19 regarding offenses involving
alcohol or drugs.

Other suggested modifications from commenters

Many commenters provided suggested alternatives to the proposed medical
provisions.  Among others, these suggestions included the following:

Institute a fourth-class airman medical certificate;

Require a third-class airman medical certificate for those with no, or
no recent, appreciable flight time;

Require a third-class airman medical certificate for night flight and
IFR flight;

Require an eye examination at a local clinic in lieu of a U.S.
driver’s license;

Have the option of having an evaluation from a private physician once
every 5 years in lieu of a U.S. driver’s license;

Allow a written medical declaration or certificate of good health to
replace the driver’s license for those who do not want to get a U.S.
driver’s license or an airman medical certificate;

Do not allow by-mail or on-line renewals of a U.S. driver’s license
for sport pilot operations;

Have a “grandfather clause” to allow pilots, who might lose airman
medical certification but who have a lifetime of flying experience and
flying time, to continue to fly the aircraft they have flown all their
lives even if that aircraft would not meet the weight restrictions laid
out in the proposal.

FAA response to other suggested modifications from commenters

The FAA considered several viable alternatives to airman medical
certification.  As discussed in the proposed rule, the ARAC also
proposed many alternatives.  The FAA proposed to allow either airman
medical certification as currently set forth under part 67 or a current
and valid U.S. driver’s license as a means for holders of sport pilot
certificates and ratings to meet medical qualifications because it
wanted to avoid creating a new class of airman medical certificate that
might not be viable.  The FAA already has an elaborate airman medical
certification program for higher-rated pilots.  If sport pilots do not
want to choose airman medical certification then they choose to be
subject to the medical protocols established by U.S. driver’s
licensing entities.  The FAA wanted a viable, proven means of
certification such as that already established within the FAA and among
U.S. driver’s licensing entities.  Creating a new class of airman
medical certificate would involve more comprehensive regulations (e.g.,
amendments to parts 61, 67, and 183) because it would involve new airman
certification rules, new medical standards, and perhaps new designees or
an expansion of the role of existing designees.  It would require a new,
special category of disqualifying medical conditions, new forms, new
certificates, and further paperwork and recordkeeping requirements that
light-sport operations do not appear to warrant.  Any of these
alternatives proposed by commenters, ARAC, or considered by the FAA
would be difficult to regulate and a burden to implement.

While many of these comments for alternatives and additions to the
proposed sport pilot medical provisions may have merit, the commenters
did not provide cost justification or any detailed discussion of how the
FAA could propose adopting and implementing them.

Editorial comments on proposed medical provisions

One organization recommended that proposed Section 111 be entitled
“Must I hold an airman pilot and medical certificate as a Sport Pilot
Flight Instructor?” rather than “Must I hold an airman medical
certificate?”  It recommended that proposed Section 111 be reworded to
bring the requirement of this regulation in line with the requirements
of

§61.183, which is to hold a pilot certificate in order to be flight
instructor.

Another commenter suggested that the word “requirement,” used in
SFAR No. 89 section 3 (b), should be replaced with the word
“reasons.”  According to this commenter, “requirements” is not
the correct word because “requirements” never prevented anyone from
speaking, reading, or understanding English.  Using the word
“reasons” would allow for consistent usage of the term under current
regulations.

FAA response to editorial comments on proposed medical provisions

The comments requesting editorial changes have merit.  The FAA adopts
medical provisions that more clearly define requirements for flight
instructors and that avoid the incorrect use of the terminology
“medical requirements.”  The terminology the FAA uses under existing
§§61.123, 61.153, 61.183, and 61.213 is “medical reasons,” which
is correct.

Other editorial change

The FAA is changing the words “current and valid” when referring to
an airman medical certificate to “valid” to avoid redundancy.  An
airman medical certificate is “valid” provided it has not expired as
set forth under existing §61.23.  Because there are no
recency-of-experience requirements associated with an airman medical
certificate, the word “current” is redundant and therefore not
necessary.

Future Rulemaking on Private Pilots with Weight-Shift-Control or Powered
Parachute Ratings

	During the process of drafting the final rule, the FAA recognized that
it did not specifically propose medical eligibility requirements for
private pilots with a weight-shift-control or powered parachute rating.
This would have inadvertently defaulted these pilots to a requirement to
hold at least a third-class airman medical certificate to exercise the
privileges associated with those ratings.  This was not the FAA’s
intent.  However, because the FAA did not propose and seek public
comment on allowing private pilots with a weight-shift-control or
powered parachute rating to operate those aircraft without holding a
third-class airman medical certificate, the FAA must initiate future
rulemaking action.  It should be noted that persons wishing to operate
weight-shift-control aircraft or powered parachutes while exercising
sport pilot privileges, but not private pilot privileges, may do so
under this rule.  In addition, under current rules, a
weight-shift-control aircraft can be operated as an experimental powered
glider, with an endorsement for self-launching, without an airman
medical certificate.

V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements

As a result of this rulemaking action, the new sport pilot certificate
has been established with training, experience, and testing requirements
commensurate with the privileges and limits associated with this
certificate level.  This pilot certificate will fall between the part
103 regulations that address ultralight pilot privileges and those that
address the recreational pilot certificate.  Two of the key privileges a
sport pilot will be granted are:  (1)  The ability to operate a simple,
non-complex light-sport aircraft, defined in §1.1, that exceed the
parameters of an ultralight vehicle; and (2) permission to carry a
passenger.  Light-sport aircraft comprise the following categories of
aircraft--airplane, gyroplane, glider, balloon, airship, powered
parachute, and weight-shift-control aircraft.

Several commenters wished to see the minimum number of hours required to
obtain a sport pilot certificate raised, while a few commenters wished
to see the number of hours required lowered.

The FAA expects that the 20-hour minimum flight time requirement for all
aircraft (except gliders, balloons, and powered parachutes) is adequate
to train a person to exercise the privileges of a sport pilot.  Sport
pilots are limited in the types of aircraft they may operate and the
operations they may conduct.   The flight time and flight training are
minimum requirements that an applicant for a sport pilot certificate
must meet and even if satisfied, there are several additional checks
before a sport pilot certificate is issued.  Importantly, the applicant
must be recommended by an authorized instructor who endorses the
applicant’s logbook indicating that he or she is prepared to take and
pass the practical test.  The applicant must also have been recommended
for and passed a knowledge test on the general knowledge requirements
necessary to exercise sport pilot privileges and operate a light-sport
aircraft in the NAS.  Once recommended by the authorized instructor, the
applicant must demonstrate to the FAA, or FAA designated examiner, that
the practical test standards can be met before the certificate is
issued.

The knowledge and flight training requirements, established for a sport
pilot, requires the ability to comply with the operating rules in part
91, the certification rules in part 61, and NTSB rules in 14 CFR part
830.  After satisfying all of these requirements for a pilot
certificate, a sport pilot may—

Operate an aircraft that meets the definition of light-sport aircraft
that does not exceed 87 knots VH and carry only one passenger

Fly only between sunrise and sunset, below 10,000 feet MSL, with visual
reference to the surface, and when the visibility is 3 miles or greater

Operate in class E and G airspace, but not in class A, B, C, and D
airspace where you need to communicate with ATC, and fly cross-country

Not tow any object, not conduct sales demonstration rides if an aircraft
salesman, not fly for compensation or hire, or carry a passenger for
compensation or hire.

Additionally, to accommodate the approach originally proposed by the
ultralight industry, the FAA established a building-block approach to
permit a sport pilot to obtain additional privileges.  After meeting the
requirements for a sport pilot certificate, the pilot must obtain
additional experience, training, and/or testing to receive an
endorsement allowing the pilot to—

Operate a new category or class of light-sport aircraft

Operate a make and model of light-sport aircraft within a different set
of aircraft

Operate a light-sport aircraft that exceeds 87 knots VH (but does not
exceed 120 knots VH)

Operate in Class B, C, and D airspace and other airspace in which
communication with ATC is required

One commenter suggested that the training and proficiency requirements
be made commensurate with the complexity of aircraft on which the
training is being given.  The FAA believes that the rule does this.  All
student pilots, regardless of the certificate levels they are seeking,
or the complexity of the aircraft, are trained to safely operate the
aircraft in which they are receiving training in order to conduct solo
operations.  The FAA does not set a minimum time to meet the solo
requirement, although an endorsement from an authorized flight
instructor and continued supervision during solo training is required. A
student pilot then continues training that is specific to the pilot
certificate he or she is seeking.

The minimum training required for a sport certificate will be
appropriate for a light-sport aircraft, in the category the student
wishes to fly, and in an aircraft that operates at an airspeed below 87
knots CAS VH (100 mph).  Although, the student does have the option to
operate a light-sport aircraft that exceeds 87 knots VH this will
require training beyond the minimums set forth for a sport pilot
certificate.  How much additional training will depend on the complexity
of the light-sport aircraft and the skills of the pilot.

An important factor to remember when comparing the training requirements
of an ultralight pilot, a sport pilot, a recreational pilot, and a
private pilot is that the rules do consider the type of aircraft
operated (category, class, weight, speed, and complexity), and the
operating privileges and limitations.  Reference the charts under “IV.
Comparative Tables” for an overview of these factors.

Additionally, some commenters raised concerns about the minimum training
requirements for a sport pilot who would have the authority to operate
an experimental, primary, or standard category aircraft that currently
can only be operated by a recreational pilot or higher certificate
level.  The FAA believes that pilot training, and subsequent privileges
and limitations of the pilot certificate, are based on an aircraft’s
operating characteristics, speed, weight, and complexity.  They are not
based on how the aircraft was manufactured and the type of airworthiness
certificate the aircraft has been issued.  The FAA believes that any
aircraft that meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft can be
safely operated by a sport pilot with the required training, testing,
and endorsements.  How the aircraft is operated and maintained is
dependent on the type of airworthiness certificate issued.  A sport
pilot is trained and tested to ensure that he or she can make those
determinations.

The FAA received numerous comments recommending that cross-country
distances for weight-shift-control aircraft training be decreased to
distances similar to those required for gyroplane training.  The FAA
proposed that the training requirements for weight-shift-control
aircraft be identical to those for powered fixed-wing requirements.  The
commenters pointed out that a weight-shift-control aircraft have an open
fuselage and fly at much slower speeds than fixed-wing aircraft.  They
stated that speeds of weight-shift-control aircraft are rarely in excess
of 87 knots CAS, which are similar to speeds achieved by gyroplanes.
The FAA agrees that weight-shift-control aircraft have similar operating
speeds to gyroplanes; therefore, the FAA is reducing the training
requirements for cross-country distances at the sport pilot and private
pilot certificate levels to reflect the lower operating speeds of these
aircraft.

The FAA also received numerous comments on the flight training
requirements in a powered parachute for sport pilot and private pilot
certificates.  Most commenters said that powered parachute training
requirements should parallel the training requirements for gliders and
balloons, as opposed to paralleling the training requirements for
fixed-wing aircraft, which was proposed.  After gaining operational
experience in powered parachutes during the development of the practical
test standards, the FAA agrees, and, therefore, in the final rule the
training requirements for powered parachutes are modified to parallel
those for gliders and balloons.  This change to the final rule reflects
the need for training in the critical takeoff and landing phases of
flight, as well as ground handling during set-up and after landing.  The
powered parachute minimum flight time and flight training time for sport
pilots and private pilots is decreased.  For a sport pilot, the decrease
is from 20 hours to 12 hours for total flight time, which must include
10 hours of flight training time.  Even though the minimum time
requirement is decreased, the training time must now include an
additional requirement for at least 20 takeoffs and landings with an
authorized instructor and 10 solo takeoffs and landings to a full stop.
For a private pilot, the decrease is from 40 hours to 25 hours of total
time, and from 20 hours to 10 hours of flight training time.  However,
the training time must now include at least 30 takeoffs and landings
with an authorized instructor to a full stop and 20 solo takeoffs and
landing to a full stop.  These revised flight times are in excess of
what is required for a glider or balloon pilot at the sport pilot and
private pilot certificate levels.

In addition, although cross-country and night training is not required
for a glider or balloon rating at the private pilot level, the FAA is
requiring this training at the private pilot level for a powered
parachute rating.  Night training is not required at the sport pilot
level because sport pilots are not authorized to fly at night; however,
cross country training is required at the sport pilot level with a
powered parachute rating.  These additional training requirements for a
powered parachute rating are necessary because powered parachutes,
unlike gliders and balloons, are powered aircraft.  The cross-country
requirements were changed to reflect the significantly slower speeds of
powered parachutes, generally 30 mph, as opposed to the proposed
requirements that were applicable to much faster fixed wing aircraft.
For sport pilots, the requirement for 2 hours cross-country flight
training is reduced to 1 hour, and the solo cross-country flight
requirements are reduced to require only one solo flight with a
straight-line distance of 10 NM between the take off and landing
locations.

The FAA received comments on powered parachute and weight-shift-control
navigational training requirements.  In addition to considering those
comments, while developing practical test standards for these aircraft,
the FAA became more familiar with the characteristics of these aircraft.
 During that process, the FAA realized that weight-shift-control
aircraft and powered parachutes typically navigate by dead reckoning,
which requires the aid of a magnetic compass, as opposed to pilotage,
which does not require one.  Most powered parachutes and
weight-shift-control aircraft do not have a magnetic compass.  This is
also the case with many of other open-cockpit, slower light-sport
aircraft such as gyroplanes and some fixed-wing aircraft.  In the final
rule, therefore, the FAA is adding words such as “as applicable” or
“as appropriate” to §§61.1, 61.93, and 61.309 when addressing the
use of navigation systems.  This means that training is required only on
the navigation systems appropriate for the kind of aircraft flown.  The
practical test standards will provide specific guidelines for meeting
this training requirement.  Additionally, the FAA reviewed the proposed
solo cross-country flight requirement for persons seeking
weight-shift-control aircraft privileges and is revising the proposal to
require the flight to include a full-stop landing at a minimum of two
points.  This change is also being made to the proposed requirements for
persons seeking airplane and rotorcraft privileges.  It is being made to
preclude cross-country flights that include only a takeoff and landing
at the original point of departure.

The Administrator’s Safer Skies Program reviews general aviation
accidents and determines new methods to prevent future accidents. One
program recommendation was that the FAA review part 61 for how it
addresses training and testing pilot judgment.  As a result of that
review, the FAA will require sport pilot training that is specifically
aimed at aeronautical decision making and risk management.  This
training will provide a way of evaluating whether a sport pilot
adequately uses risk management techniques in conjunction with
aeronautical decision making.  The FAA and industry are currently
developing new training and certification materials to meet these new
requirements.  Accordingly, the FAA is changing references in
aeronautical knowledge requirements that refer to “judgment” to
“risk management.”

Several commenters noted that the FAA proposed to require solo
cross-country training to obtain a sport pilot certificate to operate a
balloon, but not  to obtain other pilot certificates to operate a
balloon.  The commenters noted that this proposed requirement in the
regulatory text conflicted with the discussion in the preamble.  This
was an error in the regulatory language, and §61.313 (f) is changed to
reflect the FAA’s intent that solo cross-country training for balloons
is not required.

There were several commenters who noted that certain proposed flight
training and proficiency maneuver requirements would have been
inappropriate for training in powered parachutes and
weight-shift-control aircraft.  The maneuvers the commenters cited for
powered parachutes were meta-stable stalls and partial canopy collapses.
 The commenters said that meta-stable stalls are a result of a design
and rigging issue not a flight training issue.  They recommended that
meta-stable stall avoidance is one of ensuring proper rigging of the
canopy and should be addressed during the training segments on proper
rigging.  For weight-shift-control aircraft, the commenters cited spins,
and tumble entry and avoidance techniques.  In addition, a few
commenters suggested eliminating the powered parachute training
requirement for crosswind takeoffs and landings because a powered
parachuted does not have rudder or aileron control surfaces, and a pilot
cannot compensate for crosswinds on takeoffs and landings.  Many
commenters suggested that the rule be revised to either require
recognition and avoidance training for those areas of operation or to
eliminate those training requirements.  The FAA agrees.  While it is
crucial that pilots of powered parachutes and weight-shift-control
aircraft be capable of recognizing and avoiding such emergencies, it is
not safe for pilots to experience them in training.  The FAA is
therefore revising the rule as follows.

In SFAR No. 89 sections 33, 53, and 115 and §61.107, the FAA proposed
flight proficiency training requirements for student pilots seeking a
sport pilot certificate, sport pilots, private pilots, and persons
seeking a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating in the
areas of stalls, meta-stable stalls, and partial canopy collapses in
powered parachutes.  Flight proficiency training requirements are now
included in §§61.87, 61.107, 61.311, and 61.409.  However, in the
final rule, the requirements for flight proficiency in crosswind
takeoffs and landings, meta-stable stalls, and partial canopy collapses
are removed for the reasons cited in the previous paragraph.  Those
subjects will be covered in the aeronautical knowledge sections of the
final rule and addressed in the practical test standards.

Proposed SFAR No. 89 section 51 would have required sport pilots to
receive ground training in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin
recovery techniques (if applicable).  It also would have required sport
pilots seeking to operate weight-shift-control aircraft to receive
training in tumble entry, and tumble avoidance techniques.  Proposed
section 53 of SFAR No. 89 would have required a sport pilot to receive
ground and flight training in slow flight and stalls, except when
seeking privileges in a lighter-than-air aircraft or a gyroplane.

In the final rule, the FAA is removing the requirement to receive
training in tumble entry and tumble avoidance techniques for a sport
pilot seeking to operate a weight-shift-control aircraft.  The FAA is
also removing the requirements for both a sport pilot and a private
pilot seeking to operate a powered parachute to receive training in slow
flight and stalls.  In addition, the FAA is also removing the
requirement for sport pilots seeking to operate a lighter-than-air
aircraft to receive training in slow flight.  Sport pilots will be
required to receive ground training in stall awareness, spin entry,
spins, and spin recovery techniques.  This training should provide
applicants with a general understanding of these aeronautical knowledge
areas and include specific training applicable to the category and class
of aircraft in which privileges are sought.

For flight instructors seeking a sport pilot rating, the FAA is revising
proposed section 115 of SFAR No. 89 by not requiring an applicant to
receive training in slow flight if the person is seeking to operate a
lighter-than-air aircraft or a powered parachute.  The rule also does
not require an applicant to receive training in stalls if the person is
seeking to operate a lighter-than-air aircraft, a powered parachute, or
a gyroplane.  In addition, the final rule removes the proposed
requirements for spin training for those individuals seeking flight
instructor privileges in weight-shift-control aircraft because a
weight-shift-control aircraft does not spin.  In the final rule, the FAA
is adding a requirement for training in tumble entry and avoidance
techniques for those persons seeking flight instructor privileges in
weight-shift-control aircraft.  A flight instructor must be
knowledgeable about this particular maneuvering characteristic and have
the skills to provide proper instruction on tumble entry and avoidance
techniques.

Similarly, proposed §61.107 (b)(9)(viii) would have contained a
requirement to conduct slow flight in a powered parachute.  During the
development of the practical test standards, the FAA determined that
since powered parachutes only fly no more than 30 mph, this training
requirement is not applicable for this category of aircraft.  In the
final rule, this requirement is removed.  This requirement is also
removed from §61.311.

A few commenters noted that in proposed SFAR No. 89 section 55, the FAA
did not address the aeronautical experience required for a class
privilege for land or sea in the airplane, powered parachute, and
weight-shift-control aircraft categories.  Although the FAA did not
specifically address requirements for land and sea privileges, the
requirements set forth in that section applied to both classes of
aircraft.  The FAA is revising the final rule in §§61.311 and 61.313
(a), (g), and (h) to differentiate between land and sea privileges.  The
final rule requires specific endorsements for the exercise of either set
of privileges.

Additionally, the commenters were not sure if the proposed rule
addressed the requirements for the addition of class privileges.  For
the addition of class privileges, refer to §61.321, which requires that
the appropriate ground and flight training specified in §§61.309 and
61.311 for the new class of aircraft. This training and recommendation
must be accomplished with an authorized instructor with a different
authorized instructor completing a proficiency check.

V.5.A.iv. Make And Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets Of Aircraft

In proposed section 61 of SFAR No. 89 (now §61.319), the FAA proposed
that the holder of a sport pilot certificate must have a logbook
endorsement from an authorized flight instructor for each category,
class, or make or model of light-sport aircraft that he or she wished to
operate.  In addition, proposed SFAR No. 89 section 125 (now §§61.413
and 61.415), stated that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
could provide training only in a category and class and make and model
of light-sport aircraft in which he or she is authorized to provide
training.  These proposed requirements were intended to ensure that any
sport pilot flying in, or any flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating instructing in, one of the unique light-sport aircraft that fall
into the broad categories and classes of aircraft established in §61.5
would receive additional flight training that was make-and-model
specific.

The FAA notes that the preamble to the NPRM (under “Proposed Sections
59 and 61”) stated that the FAA would work with industry to develop
procedures to allow flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to
issue logbook endorsements “for a particular group of make and model
aircraft having similar operating characteristics.”  The agency
recognized then that grouping aircraft having similar performance and
operating characteristics could reduce the administrative burden of
obtaining logbook endorsements for all make and models of aircraft.  The
agency asked for comments, both in the NPRM and in the on-line public
forum, on whether make and model endorsements for sport pilots would be
in the public interest.

Nearly all of the numerous comments addressing this issue criticized the
make and model endorsement requirement as overly burdensome and
unnecessary.  Several commenters noted the particular burden the
endorsement requirement would place on flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating, who would be required to obtain a logbook endorsement for
every make and model of light-sport aircraft they wished to use for
training.  Many commenters noted that this proposed requirement might
have the unintended effect of discouraging a current ultralight
instructor from becoming a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
because that instructor would be required to obtain specific training
for each aircraft on which he or she wished to provide training.  Many
commenters also noted that, in some remote areas of the United States,
obtaining training for a specific make and model of light-sport aircraft
might require a prospective flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
to travel some distance and incur relatively high expenses to gain an
endorsement.  This could make qualified instructors hard to find and
consequently make their services more expensive, the commenters said.
The commenters also pointed out that, if a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating had difficulty obtaining the appropriate logbook
endorsement to train on a specific make or model of light-sport
aircraft, a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate or a sport
pilot might have difficulty finding an instructor in his or her area
qualified to offer training on the aircraft he or she wishes to fly.

Most commenters felt that the differences between various makes and
models of light-sport aircraft were minor and generally would not affect
the ability of a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to safely
provide training in various makes and models of light-sport aircraft,
nor would those minor differences affect a sport pilot’s ability to
operate them.  Many commenters suggested removing the requirement
completely for these reasons.  Commenters also suggested the FAA
organize light-sport aircraft of similar performance and handling
characteristics into broad groups and allow flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating to receive logbook endorsements within each group,
rather than obtain one endorsement for each make and model of aircraft.
Most commenters felt this modification would reduce the cost to flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating, consequently reducing the cost
passed to sport pilots and student pilots seeking a sport pilot
certificate.

An industry organization suggested that it would be reasonable to allow
for the operation of an additional make and model of light-sport
aircraft if the sport pilot became familiar with the operating
limitations, emergency procedures, operating speeds, and weight and
balance for the particular make and model of aircraft. Additionally, the
sport pilot would be required perform the following flight operations
prior to carrying a passenger, accomplishing a cross-country flight, or
operating solo in Class B or C airspace--take-offs and landings (minimum
of 3 to a full stop), power-off stalls (as appropriate), and 1 hour of
pilot-in-command flight time.  The sport pilot would then endorse his or
her logbook specifying that these actions had been completed.  The
endorsement would permit the sport pilot to operate that make and model
of aircraft.

After reviewing the comments and gaining a better understanding of the
technical similarities between certain makes and models of light-sport
aircraft, the FAA agrees that the proposed rule could have been
administratively and economically burdensome.  Although the FAA does not
believe the requirements should be completely eliminated, the FAA is
changing the final rule as discussed below.

	The FAA now recognizes that grouping makes and models of light-sport
aircraft that have very similar performance and operating
characteristics as a set of aircraft would be an effective means to
permit sport pilots to operate any aircraft within that set once an
endorsement to operate any aircraft within that set has been received.
The FAA now believes that it is possible to group light-sport aircraft
into sets of aircraft, as defined in current §61.1.  Section 61.1
states that the term “set of aircraft” refers to aircraft that
“share similar performance characteristics, such as similar airspeed
and altitude operating envelopes, similar handling characteristics, and
the same number and type of propulsion systems.”  This concept of
grouping aircraft having similar operating characteristics, or using
sets of aircraft, has been used successfully for many years through the
National Designated Pilot Examiner Registry (NDPER) program for training
and checking pilots operating warbirds and other vintage aircraft.

A working group of FAA and industry representatives, including pilots,
flight instructors and manufacturers, will be established to develop
standards for defining and establishing sets of aircraft.  Sets of
light-sport aircraft will be established according to the definition of
“set of aircraft” in §61.1 and made available to the public.  The
parameters to establish sets of aircraft will be referenced in the
advisory material, and a list of aircraft that meet the parameters for a
specific set of aircraft will be available on the FAA’s website.  All
experimental, primary, and standard category light-sport aircraft will
be grouped into sets.  In addition, newly manufactured light-sport
aircraft will be required to have “flight training supplements” to
identify the sets of aircraft to which they belong.  As a member of the
working group, the FAA will recommend that sets of aircraft include
experimental aircraft with modifications and single-seat aircraft.

The FAA is revising the rule (under §§61.319 and 61.323) to require
that, before conducting flight operations, the holder of a sport pilot
certificate––

Must receive training from an authorized instructor in a make and model
of light-sport aircraft that is in the same set as the aircraft in which
the pilot intends to conduct flight operations.

Must record a make and model logbook endorsement from an authorized
instructor for the make and model of light-sport aircraft in which
flight privileges are desired.

May operate any additional make and model of light-sport aircraft within
a set of light-sport aircraft under a single make and model logbook
endorsement issued by an authorized flight instructor.

	Under the final rule (under §61.415), the FAA is not requiring an
additional make and model endorsement for a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating.  The FAA recognizes that such a requirement would be
superfluous.  Also, as discussed in the following paragraph, if a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating holds a higher pilot certificate, a
make and model endorsement is not required under the final rule.

The FAA received several comments from individuals and industry
organizations that stated that the FAA should reconsider the proposed
requirement that the holder of a recreational pilot certificate or
higher who is exercising sport pilot privileges be required to receive
flight training and a make and model logbook endorsement from an
authorized instructor before being permitted to fly a specific make and
model light-sport aircraft.  The FAA recognizes that the holder of a
recreational pilot certificate or higher pilot certificate with the
applicable rating has received more training than a sport pilot, which
in most cases was in more complex and larger aircraft.  Therefore, the
FAA is revising the final rule under §61.303 to establish that the
holder of a recreational pilot certificate or higher is not required to
obtain a make and model logbook endorsement from an authorized
instructor to operate a light-sport aircraft while exercising the
privileges of a sport pilot certificate.

Several commenters said it would be burdensome to require a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating to have at least 5 hours of
required pilot-in-command time in each make and model of light-sport
aircraft in which he or she is authorized to provide flight training.
This was proposed in SFAR No. 89 section 135 (c).  After gathering
additional technical information and considering the comments, the FAA
still believes that flight instructors with a sport pilot rating must
become familiar with the light-sport aircraft on which they intend to
provide training and must have at least 5 hours of flight time in the
make and model of aircraft within a set of aircraft.  The ability to
satisfy the make and model requirement within the set of aircraft
provisions discussed above partially relieves the burden.  Additionally,
the FAA no longer believes it necessary for a flight instructor to
receive this training from another flight instructor.  The final rule is
changed to provide the level of safety intended under the proposed rule
and to reduce the administrative burden and possibly the economic
burden.  In the final rule (§61.415 (e)), before conducting
flight-training operations, a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating must log at least 5 hours of flight time in a make and model of
light-sport aircraft within the same set of aircraft in which
flight-training operations are to be conducted.

Although the final rule does not require endorsements for each
individual make and model flown within a set of aircraft, the FAA
believes, and will recommend through advisory material, that all pilots
and flight instructors should consider a familiarization flight in each
light-sport aircraft in which flight operations will be conducted.
Guidelines for the familiarization flights will be established in the
standards for the aircraft training supplement and in advisory material
provided by the FAA.  Make and model familiarization training should
address the aircraft’s performance envelope, preflight, cockpit
orientation, use of flaps, takeoff, climb, cruise, required maneuvers,
slow flight, stalls, approach, landing, aircraft operating instructions,
and aircraft flight training supplement.

V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions

As described in the proposed rule, with additional training, a sport
pilot may operate in Class B, C, or D airspace with a U.S. driver’s
license or an airman medical certificate.  Currently ultralight pilots
operating under part 103 are permitted to operate within Class B, C, or
D airspace with prior air traffic control authorization.  They may not,
however, operate over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement.
 Ultralight pilots have had the authority to operate any type of
ultralight vehicle (i.e., fixed wing, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control) in Class B, C, and D airspace without an airman
medical certificate for approximately 20 years.  Additionally, the FAA
has allowed balloon and glider pilots to operate in this airspace
without an airman medical certificate since 1945.  In consideration of a
sport pilot’s limited privileges within this airspace, and after
analyzing relevant accident data, the FAA has determined that, as
proposed in the NPRM, it is appropriate to allow sport pilots to operate
in Class B, C, and D airspace with a U.S. driver’s license or an
airman medical certificate.  For further discussion on medical
provisions, see “V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.”

Some commenters, including the NTSB, expressed concern about the slower
light-sport aircraft operating in close proximity to faster general
aviation and commercial aircraft in Class B, C, and D airspace, and said
that this could pose difficulty for air traffic controllers and present
a potentially dangerous situation.  A few commenters, including the
NTSB, expressed concern that training requirements for sport pilots may
not be sufficient to permit sport pilots to operate in the same airspace
as transport category aircraft.  The FAA also received comments
expressing concern over the lack of experience of sport pilots operating
light-sport aircraft in Class B, C, or D airspace, or at major airports
located in Class B airspace, as listed in 14 CFR part 91, appendix D,
section 4.  The commenters said that this would pose a burden on other
pilots in those classes of airspace and for ATC facilities.

The FAA has considered these comments and maintains the position it took
in the NPRM regarding operations in Class B, C, and D airspace.  See the
discussions of proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 37, 81, 121, and 135, and
§61.101 in the preamble to the NPRM.  However, the FAA agrees with the
commenters who felt that some airspace is too busy and congested, not
only for sport pilots, but also for recreational pilots, and has
reconsidered sport pilot and recreational pilot operations at the major
airports located in Class B airspace, as listed in 14 CFR part 91,
appendix D, section 4.  The FAA is changing §91.131 (b)(2) to provide
that, like all student pilots, a sport pilot or a recreational pilot is
not authorized to take off or land at the major airports located in
Class B airspace, as listed in 14 CFR part 91, appendix D, section 4.
It should also be noted that sport pilots and recreational pilots are
prohibited from operations in Class B, C, and D airspace unless they
have received the required training and an endorsement, in accordance
with §§61.325 and 61.101 (d).  Those sections establish equivalent
training requirements to those that a private pilot must receive for
operating in those classes of airspace.  Furthermore, a sport pilot may
not fly above 10,000 feet, at night, or when flight or surface
visibility is less than 3 statute miles.  Basic VFR weather minimums
specified in §91.155 also apply to sport pilots.  A private pilot,
however, has more privileges than a sport pilot in airspace that
transport category aircraft operate in.  Specifically a private pilot is
authorized to land at the major airports located in Class B airspace, as
listed in 14 CFR part 91, appendix D, section 4, and a private pilot may
operate in Class A, B, C, D, E, and G airspace without any additional
training.

The FAA notes that, in the final rule under §61.89, the FAA defines the
limitations for a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate.  The
rule provides that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate is
prohibited from operations in Class B, C and D airspace; at an airport
located in Class B, C, or D airspace; and to, from, through, or on an
airport having an operational control tower.  Therefore, he or she is
not required to receive training on procedures for operations in these
classes of airspace.  If, however, he or she wishes to operate in Class
B, C, or D airspace; at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace;
or to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control
tower, under §61.94, that student pilot seeking a sport pilot
certificate is required to receive airspace and airport-specific
training and an endorsement.

A recreational pilot is prohibited from operations in Class B, C and D
airspace; at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace; and to,
from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower,
unless he or she wishes to receive the additional training specified in
§61.101 (d).  Therefore, a student pilot seeking a recreational pilot
certificate is prohibited from operating in this airspace unless
receiving the additional training specified under §61.94.

The FAA is also modifying §61.95 to exclude a student pilot seeking a
sport pilot or recreational pilot certificate from the requirements of
this rule because new §61.94 will apply to persons.  Section 61.94
parallels the requirements of §61.95, although it is more restrictive.
The required training in §61.94 encompasses training on Class B, C, D
airspace and airport-specific training, as opposed to the training
requirements in §61.95 that is limited to only Class B airspace and
airport-specific training and the required endorsement.

In the proposed rule, the FAA would have prohibited a sport pilot from
operating in Class B, C, and D airspace without additional training and
an endorsement, and would have revised the rule for the recreational
pilot to parallel the new sport pilot rule language.  Currently,
recreational pilots are prohibited from operating in airspace that
requires communication with ATC.

The FAA intended the proposed language to prohibit sport pilots and
recreational pilots without appropriate ground and flight training from
conducting light-sport aircraft operations in airspace that has an
operational control tower.  Upon further review, the FAA realized that
this would not have prohibited operations as described in §§91.126 (d)
and 91.127 (e), which prohibit operations in Class E and G airspace that
have an operational control tower.  Pilots operating in airspace and at
airports with operational control towers must receive training and have
appropriate equipment.  Therefore, in the final rule, §§61.94, 61.101
(d), and 61.325 address not only how student pilots seeking a sport
pilot and recreational pilot certificate and sport pilots and
recreational pilots, respectively, obtain privileges to operate a
light-sport aircraft at airports within, or in airspace within, Class B,
C, and D airspace, but also at other airspace with an airport having an
operational control tower.  The headings of those sections are revised,
and within the regulatory text the words “…and to, from, through, or
at an airport having an operational control tower” are added.  In
addition, §61.425 includes parallel language to describe endorsement
records that must be kept by flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating.

For further discussion of equipment required for operating light-sport
aircraft in these classes of airspace, see “V.7.A. Part 91--General
Issues” below.

V.5.A.vi. Changes to Altitude Limitations

Proposed section 73 (b)(6) of SFAR No. 89 (now §61.315 (c)(11)) would
have restricted the operation of a light-sport aircraft to altitudes of
no more than 10,000 feet above MSL or 2,000 feet above
ground level (AGL), whichever is higher.  The FAA received several
comments on this proposed restriction, and nearly all of them opposed
it.  Most stated that allowing pilots to fly at higher altitudes would
enhance safety.

Several commenters noted that higher altitudes permit safer stall and
spin recovery training because of the increased margin for error.  One
commenter specifically noted that visibility is often better above
10,000 feet MSL, which enhances safety.  Another commenter offered a
similar observation, noting that pilots often choose to fly at higher
altitudes to avoid flying through dangerous weather systems.  Many
commenters also noted that glider pilots often need to fly at altitudes
greater than 10,000 feet MSL to take full advantage of areas of rising
warm air, called thermals, which help to keep gliders aloft.

The FAA does not believe that these commenters provided valid
justification for amending the rule.  After considering these comments
and other comments expressing concern about sport pilots operating in
congested, high-altitude airspace, the FAA has revised §61.315 (c)(11)
to be more restrictive.  The rule now prohibits operations above 10,000
feet MSL, and the latitude that was proposed for operations up to 2,000
feet AGL, if higher, is removed.  The FAA is making this revision for
the following reasons.

First, operations above 10,000 feet MSL require that a pilot have skills
and training on oxygen requirements and medical factors, reduced
aircraft performance, and the other risks associated with operations at
higher altitudes. The minimum training that a sport pilot receives does
not encompass these additional training requirements.

Second, given that the aircraft that typically operate above 10,000 feet
MSL are often much larger than light-sport aircraft and usually cruise
at considerably higher speeds, the FAA is concerned about permitting
light-sport aircraft to operate at the same altitudes as these aircraft.

Third, light-sport aircraft typically do not have position or
anticollision lights to help other pilots see and avoid these aircraft,
which would be beneficial at higher speeds.

Lastly, there are still many areas in the United States where operations
above 10,000 feet MSL do not require communication with ATC or the
equipment required to be easily identified on radar by ATC, such as
transponders.  Most light-sport aircraft do not have transponders or the
capability to conduct radio communications, reducing their ability to
coordinate their operations with ATC and be easily identified to ensure
collision avoidance.

Several commenters disagreed with the limit of 2,000 feet AGL, arguing
that most pilots would prefer, in the interest of safety, to clear
mountains by more than 2,000 feet AGL.  The FAA agrees with these
commenters in that there could be circumstances in which a sport pilot
would need more than 2,000 feet AGL to safely clear a mountain.
However, as discussed above regarding training and equipment required
for high-altitude operations, the FAA does not believe it is necessary
to permit operations above 10,000 feet MSL solely for the purpose of
crossing mountainous terrain. The pilot must determine whether it is
safe to clear mountainous terrain and remain below 10,000 feet MSL.

The FAA is revising §61.311 (c), and limiting sport pilot operations at
all times to below 10,000 feet MSL.  The FAA believes that this revision
will simplify the altitude restrictions and increase the level of
safety.

The FAA maintains that any pilot who wishes to exercise the privilege of
operating above 10,000 feet MSL must gain the necessary experience and
receive the additional training required for at least a private pilot
certificate, or, in limited cases, a recreational pilot certificate.

V.5.G.vii. Gyroplanes

Most gyroplanes historically have not been designed and manufactured to
a specific regulatory standard.  These aircraft are typically issued
experimental certificates, which prohibit them from being used to
conduct flight training operations for compensation or hire.  Under the
existing regulations, gyroplanes can be issued a standard category or
primary category airworthiness certificate, which will permit such use;
however, very few manufacturers have chosen this certification path.
Today most of the gyroplanes that fit under the definition of a
light-sport aircraft are certificated as experimental amateur-built
aircraft or are being operated under part 103.  Those gyroplanes that
exceed the limits of part 103 will need to be certificated as
experimental light-sport aircraft to continue operating under this rule.

The FAA has issued exemptions to permit gyroplanes without standard
category airworthiness certificates to be operated for compensation or
hire while conducting flight training.  The three FAA-recognized
ultralight organizations, the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA),
Aero Sports Connection (ASC), and the United States Ultralight
Association (USUA) hold exemptions that permit its members to conduct
flight training in a two-place ultralight-like gyroplane, and the
Popular Rotorcraft Association (PRA) holds an exemption for gyroplanes
issued an experimental amateur-built certificate.

The FAA received numerous comments, including comments from an industry
association, regarding the inclusion of gyroplanes and helicopters in
the proposed rule.  The comments reflected two general areas of concern.
 A primary concern was whether gyroplanes would be manufactured under a
consensus standard and issued special airworthiness certificates,
permitting these aircraft to conduct training operations for
compensation or hire.  Commenters expressed the need for appropriate
training aircraft to be available for gyroplane flight instruction.  The
ability to manufacture a gyroplane under a consensus standard would
provide new training aircraft that meet a design standard.

Secondly, many expressed significant concern about the lack of pilot
training and the lack of qualified flight instructors available for
gyroplanes.  The gyroplane industry submitted comments requesting that
the FAA consider the importance of ensuring that flight instructors with
a sport pilot rating have the ability to instruct in light-sport
gyroplanes.  FAA and industry analysis and data supports the conclusion
that a lack of training, flight experience, and flight proficiency
account for about half of all gyroplane accidents.  Lack of proficiency
or poor judgment under which a pilot flies a gyroplane beyond the
aircraft’s or the pilot’s own safe limits are often factors in many
gyroplane accidents.

The FAA acknowledges that the gyroplane training infrastructure is less
developed than other traditional aircraft training networks, owing in
part to historical and cultural influences within the gyroplane
community, the scarcity of training aircraft, gyroplane instructors and
DPEs, the lack of gyroplane knowledge training resources, and even to a
widespread inconsistent and often inadequate understanding and
appreciation of gyroplane control and stability issues, by both
instructors and pilots and the general aviation community.  These
factors, coupled with an inappropriate reliance on the use of fixed-wing
training methodologies by students and instructors, sometimes leave less
experienced pilots unaware of the limits of a particular gyroplane.
This lack of consistent, comprehensive, and gyroplane-specific training
often leaves new gyroplane pilots unaware of their aircraft’s handling
characteristics, and ill-prepared to make sound flight decisions,
particularly when they encounter the limits of the aircraft flight
envelope.

The FAA notes that there are a total of approximately 35 gyroplane
instructors throughout the U.S. who are either certificated by the FAA
or who are operating under a part 103 training exemption.  Many of these
instructors provide training only part-time.  Further, those gyroplanes
used for training possess flight handling and stability characteristics
that are often very different from the characteristics of the small,
single-place gyroplanes into which a student pilot might later
transition.  Additionally, the scarcity of both instructors and
qualified FAA aviation safety inspectors and DPEs provide further
discouragement for an individual attempting to undertake training for a
gyroplane rating.  All of these impediments to an individual becoming a
gyroplane pilot are compounded by existing night and night cross-country
training requirements, which most gyroplane training aircraft are not
equipped to accomplish.  Further, many gyroplane instructors are often
not willing to endure the risk and difficulty of conducting night
cross-country flights in open cockpit experimental aircraft.

Many individuals presented such reasoning in their comments, arguing
that, given the existing obstacles to an individual obtaining gyroplane
flight instruction, the FAA should avoid exacerbating the problem and
allow light-sport gyroplanes to obtain special airworthiness
certificates under this rule.  These commenters stated that, without the
availability of special light-sport gyroplanes, or the ability of
gyroplane instructors to use existing two-place gyroplanes to conduct
training for compensation or hire, a significant percentage of gyroplane
instructors (currently ultralight flight instructors) will not be able
to continue instructing.

Based on these concerns, the gyroplane industry identified numerous
general training issues it felt should be addressed in the final rule
regarding light-sport gyroplane aircraft.  Many of the comments
addressed have been considered for all categories of aircraft and
discussed elsewhere in this preamble.  Specific gyroplane-only issues
included:

Removal of the mandatory requirement for night training at all pilot
certificate levels and the addition of a limitation on the pilot
certificate;

Elimination of the requirement that a single-place ultralight gyroplane
pilot take a check ride in a two-place light-sport aircraft;

Extension of the training exemptions or issuance of Letters of Deviation
Authority for an indefinite period if gyroplanes can not be certificated
under §21.186 (now §21.190);

Review of current exemptions and practical test standards to incorporate
more stringent training requirements that flight instructors understand
pitch and stability, and recognize departure from controlled flight and
apply appropriate recovery techniques.

With regard to the gyroplane industry’s request for revisions to the
training requirements, the FAA is making changes to the rule, not only
for sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating, but
also for recreational pilots and private pilots flying gyroplanes.

The new two-place experimental light-sport gyroplanes certificated under
§21.191(i)(1), consisting of the existing fleet of two-place
ultralight-like gyroplanes, will be permitted to be used for training
for compensation or hire for a 5-year period, similar to all other
categories of light-sport aircraft.  Experimental light-sport
gyroplanes, as well as any experimental amateur-built light-sport
gyroplanes, will be authorized to be operated by a sport pilot to carry
a passenger and to receive flight training.  If the gyroplane industry
develops an industry consensus standard through the ASTM process (as
discussed under §21.190), the FAA can examine the safety performance of
gyroplanes that are built according to that standard.  If there are
positive safety benefits for gyroplanes built to the consensus standard,
the FAA may consider future rulemaking that would permit gyroplanes
built to the consensus standard to receive a special light-sport
aircraft airworthiness certificate under §21.190 and also allow
light-sport kit-built manufactured to a consensus standard to receive an
experimental light-sport aircraft certificate under §21.191 (i)(2).
The FAA may favorably consider petitions for exemption to allow flight
training in an aircraft built to this standard to gain operational data
to support future rulemaking.

If the gyroplane industry is unable to agree on a consensus standard,
the FAA will decide at that time whether to favorably consider petitions
for exemption to allow training in experimental light-sport gyroplanes
for compensation or hire or alternative arrangements.  In addition, the
FAA will need to evaluate the safety of continuing the current exemption
issued to the Popular Rotorcraft Association to conduct training for
compensation or hire in experimental gyroplanes.

V.5.A.viii. Demonstration of Aircraft to Prospective Buyers

Commenters suggested that the FAA consider allowing aircraft
salespersons who are sport pilots, flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating, or recreational pilots to demonstrate aircraft in flight to
prospective buyers after meeting experience requirements similar to
those for a private pilot under §61.113 (f).  The commenters also
requested the FAA consider allowing a recreational pilot who is not an
aircraft salesperson to demonstrate a light-sport aircraft to a
prospective buyer because a similar privilege was proposed for sport
pilots.

In section 75 of SFAR 89 (now §61.315 (c)(9)), the FAA proposed that a
sport pilot who is not an aircraft salesperson would be permitted to
demonstrate a light-sport aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer.
The proposal, however, would not have allowed a sport pilot who is an
aircraft salesperson to demonstrate a light-sport aircraft in flight to
a prospective buyer.  The FAA did not propose this privilege for a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating because these types of
privileges are typically addressed by the underlying pilot certificate.
Additionally, §61.101 (d)(12) currently states that a recreational
pilot is prohibited from demonstrating an aircraft in flight to a
prospective buyer.

The FAA maintains that aircraft salespersons must hold at least a
private pilot certificate to demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a
perspective buyer.  With the addition of ratings at the private pilot
certificate level for weight-shift-control aircraft and powered
parachutes, the regulations will now permit appropriately rated private
pilots who are aircraft salespersons to demonstrate these categories of
aircraft in flight to prospective buyers.

The FAA maintains that, for sales demonstrations that are not conducted
by an aircraft salesperson, a sport pilot or a recreational pilot can
conduct this activity.  Therefore, to ensure that recreational pilots
have at least the same privileges as sport pilots, the FAA is revising
§61.101 (d)(12) to allow a recreational pilot to conduct sales
demonstration flights as long as the pilot is not acting as an aircraft
salesperson.

V.5.A.ix. Category and Class Discussion:  FAA Form 8710–11 Submission

After further consideration of the NPRM, the FAA is adding a requirement
to §61.321 (proposed as SFAR No. 89 section 63) to require that the
holder of a sport pilot certificate seeking to operate in an additional
category or class of light-sport aircraft complete an application for
those privileges on a form and in a manner acceptable to the FAA.  The
FAA expects that FAA Form 8710-11, Sport Pilot Certificate and/or Rating
Application, will be used for this process.  Since the sport pilot
certificate does not list category and class privileges, this form will
be used to provide a record of the completed proficiency check and will
provide a record available to the FAA and the NTSB when conducting
accident and incident investigations or enforcement actions. Also it can
provide a method for an airman to reconstruct a lost logbook, document
endorsements that establish additional category and class privileges, or
establish proof of required endorsements for insurance purposes.

This requirement will also provide a method to gather additional data.
Although this will require that additional paperwork be completed by
airmen and authorized instructors, the FAA believes that the requirement
is necessary, considering the previously discussed benefits to the
public and the government.  To facilitate compliance with this
requirement, the FAA has modified the automated procedure, through
Integrated Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application (IACARA), for
completing FAA Form 8710-11.

Pursuant to §61.423, FAA Form 8710-11 must be signed by the
recommending instructor.  The applicant must present this form to the
authorized instructor conducting the proficiency check.  In accordance
with §61.423, the authorized instructor conducting the proficiency
check must complete, sign and submit FAA Form 8710-11 within 10 days to
the FAA upon satisfactory completion of the proficiency check. The
authorized instructor must retain a copy of the form and retain it for
three years in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of
§61.423.

V.5.B. Part 61--Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 61.1  Applicability and definitions

The FAA received comments on the definition of “cross-country” in
§61.1 (b)(3). They also commented on the provisions for pilotage, dead
reckoning, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, and other navigation
systems, which were not revised under the proposal.  Commenters pointed
out that the regulation would require training on each of these
navigation techniques and systems.  The commenters said that training on
each of these requirements could not be accomplished for
weight-shift-control aircraft and powered parachutes.  After considering
the comments and becoming more familiar with powered parachute and
weight-shift-control aircraft during the development of the practical
test standards, the FAA recognizes that training on each of these
navigation techniques and systems should be required when appropriate.
Most of these aircraft do not have any electronic navigation equipment
or radios aids and are not required to demonstrate this for the issuance
of a sport pilot certificate.  Therefore, the FAA is changing the final
rule to add the words, “as applicable” paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) and
(iv)(B).  This is also discussed above under “V.5.A.iii. Flight
Training and Proficiency Requirements.”

The FAA also is adding a definition of “student pilot seeking a sport
pilot certificate” to §61.1.  This definition is added to
differentiate these student pilots from other student pilots.  The
definition specifies that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot
certificate either receives an endorsement from a certificated flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating or an endorsement from a
certificated flight instructor with other than a sport pilot rating,
which includes a limitation for the operation of a light-sport aircraft
as specified §61.89 (c).  See discussion of §61.89 (c) below.

Changes

The proposed amendments to §61.1 are adopted with formatting and
wording changes for improved readability.  In addition, the following
changes are made.

The proposed amendment to paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is not adopted in the
final rule.  As proposed, the amendment would have added a reference to
SFAR No. 89, the provisions of which are now incorporated into part 61.
Since existing §61.1 (b)(2)(iii) already contains a reference to part
61, the amendment is no longer necessary.

In the final rule, paragraph (b)(3)(ii) introductory text is revised to
add the words “(except for a powered parachute category rating)”
after the words “for a private pilot certificate.”  This revision is
made because the definition of cross-country time in paragraph
(b)(3)(iv) addresses persons seeking a private pilot certificate with a
powered parachute category rating.

Proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(3)(iv)(A) have been included
in the introductory language of (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv) respectively.
 Proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) and (b)(3)(iv)(B) are therefore
adopted as (b)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(3)(iv)(A) respectively.

Proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(C) and (b)(3)(iv)(C) are adopted as
(b)(3)(iii)(B) and (b)(3)(iv)(B) respectively, and each is amended by
adding the words “as applicable.”

Paragraph (b)(15) is added to define the term “student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate.”

Section 61.3  Requirements for certificates, ratings, and authorizations
(proposed as SFAR No. 89 sections 15 and 111)

	The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of medical provisions.
For a complete discussion of the comments and the FAA’s responses, see
“V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.”

In the final rule, the provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 15
and 111 are found in §§61.3 (c)(2) and 61.23 (a), (b), and (c).
Current §61.3 (c)(2) excepts persons from having to meet the airman
medical certificate requirements of the section in certain
circumstances.  That paragraph is amended in the final rule to include
the medical provisions found in proposed SFAR No. 89 section 15 for
student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate and for sport pilots.
In addition, the paragraph is further amended to require that persons
using a current and valid U.S. driver’s license meet certain
requirements.  If a person has applied for an airman medical
certificate, that person must have been found eligible for the issuance
of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his
or her most recent application.  If a person has been issued an airman
medical certificate, his or her most recently issued airman medical
certificate must not have been suspended or revoked.  If a person has
been granted an Authorization, that Authorization must not have been
withdrawn.  Further, a person must not know or have reason to know of
any medical condition that would make him or her unable to operate a
light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

Proposed SFAR No. 89 section 111 set forth medical provisions for flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating.  The provisions of current §61.3
(c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(iv) address these flight instructors, and a
rule change to incorporate proposed section 111 is not therefore
required.

See the discussion under “V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.”  In
addition,  §61.23, which describes what a person needs to satisfy
medical eligibility requirements, is discussed below.

Changes

The medical provisions proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections 15 and 111 are
transferred to §61.3 (c)(2) with the following change.  New language is
added to provide that persons may not use a current and valid U.S.
driver’s license as evidence of medical qualification if his or her
most recent application for an airman medical certificate has been
denied based on being found not eligible for the issuance of at least a
third-class airman medical certificate, his or her most recently issued
airman medical certificate has been suspended or revoked, or his or her
most recent Authorization has been withdrawn.  Further, that person must
not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make
him or her unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

Section 61.5  Certificates and ratings issued under this part

	Several commenters noted that the proposed rule made no provisions for
a powered parachute-sea class rating.  The FAA assumed that it was only
necessary to establish a powered parachute category rating and not
establish separate land and sea class ratings because the FAA was not
aware that a powered parachute capable of water operations existed.  The
FAA is now aware that design innovation and new use of existing
technologies has allowed manufactures to design a powered parachute with
an inflatable wing that is suitable for water operations.  Therefore,
the FAA is establishing both powered parachute-land and powered
parachute-sea class ratings in §61.5.

Several commenters suggested adding additional categories of aircraft to
this section.  All of these suggestions were to add ultralight vehicles
that the FAA has stated will remain under part 103.  Some examples are
paramotors, paragliders, and unpowered foot-launched parachute aircraft.
 The FAA has been working closely with the ultralight industry to
establish common definitions and common industry standards for these
vehicles.  Additional categories and classes of aircraft may be
addressed in future rulemaking.  Existing exemptions for tandem
ultralight training vehicles under part 103 may also be revised to
address these new categories and classes of aircraft.  See the
discussion under “III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles” and
“III.5.B. Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles.”

	Several other commenters requested that the FAA consider commercial
pilot certificates with category ratings for powered parachutes and
weight-shift-control aircraft.  They thought that this level of pilot
certification would be required when the FAA was ready to consider some
limited commercial operations for these new categories of aircraft.  The
commenters pointed out that powered parachutes and weight-shift-control
aircraft are ideal for sightseeing, crop dusting, pipeline and powerline
patrols, aerial photography, and traffic reporting.  The FAA agrees that
limited types of commercial operations may need to be considered in the
future.  If there is a need to require a commercial pilot certificate
for those types of operations, the FAA may initiate rulemaking for that
purpose.  However, the FAA is not adding training and certification
requirements that will permit a person to add a powered parachute or
weight-shift-control category rating to a commercial or airline
transport pilot (ATP) certificate.

Changes

In §61.5, new paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) are added to include class
ratings for powered parachute land and powered parachute sea,
respectively.

In the final rule also corrects a typographical error in the body of the
rule text.  The paragraph designated “(i)*** (5) Sport pilot rating”
should have read “(c)*** (5) Sport pilot rating.”

Section 61.23  Medical certificates:  Requirement and duration (proposed
as SFAR No. 89 sections 15, 35, and 111)

The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of medical provisions.
For a complete discussion of the comments and the FAA’s responses, see
“V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.”

As noted above, in the final rule, the provisions of proposed SFAR No.
89 sections 15 and 111 are found in §§61.3 (c)(2) and 61.23 (a), (b),
and (c).  Among other things, §61.23 describes which operations do and
do not require an airman medical certificate.  In the final rule, the
FAA is adding new paragraph (c) to describe operations that require
either an airman medical certificate or a U.S. driver’s license.  The
FAA notes that the final rule includes a provision that all restrictions
listed on a current and valid U.S. driver’s license, as well as those
imposed by judicial and administrative order, apply at all times when a
U.S. driver’s license is used to meet the requirements of this
section.  This is also established under the privileges and limits for a
sport pilot in §61.315 (c)(17).  This intent was discussed in the
preamble of the NPRM for proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 15 and 35.

In addition, paragraph (c)(2) is further amended to require that persons
using a current and valid U.S. driver’s license meet certain
requirements.  A person using a driver’s license who has recently
applied for an airman medical certificate must have been found eligible
for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate.
If a person has been issued an airman medical certificate, his or her
most recently issued airman medical certificate must not have been
suspended or revoked.  If a person has been granted an Authorization,
his or her most recent Authorization must not have been withdrawn.
Further, a person must not know or have reason to know of any medical
condition that would make him or her unable to operate a light-sport
aircraft in a safe manner.

Changes

	The medical provisions proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections 15, 35, and 111
are transferred to §§61.3 and 61.23.  Under §61.23 (c)(2)(i), a
requirement is added that each restriction and limitation, including
those imposed by judicial and administrative order on a current and
valid U.S. driver’s license, apply at all times when a U.S. driver’s
license is used to meet the requirements of this section.

In addition, language is added to paragraph (c)(2) to provide that
persons may not use a current and valid U.S. driver’s license as
evidence of medical qualification if his or her most recent application
for an airman medical certificate has been denied based on being found
not eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical
certificate, his or her most recently issued airman medical certificate
has been suspended or revoked, or his or her most recent Authorization
has been withdrawn.  Further, that person must not know or have reason
to know of any medical condition that would make him or her unable to
operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

Section 61.31  Type rating requirements, additional training, and
authorization requirements

Paragraph (k)(1) is amended in the final rule to incorporate powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft in the list of aircraft for
which a category and class rating is not required if the aircraft is not
type-certificated.  The FAA recognized this oversight and is correcting
it.  Additionally, the FAA is making an editorial change to remove a
reference to the class rating for gliders because this class rating no
longer exists.

Under §61.31 (k)(2)(iii), the FAA proposed that, when conducting an
operation while carrying passengers, the holder of a pilot certificate
must have a category and class rating when operating an aircraft with an
experimental certificate or provisional type-certificate.  A few
commenters said that this change would be unnecessary.  They believed
that if a person is qualified to fly an experimental aircraft, he or she
should be qualified to carry passengers, regardless of whether he or she
holds a category and class rating.

The FAA disagrees with these comments.  The operation of experimental
aircraft by pilots without appropriate category and class ratings was
previously allowed under §61.31 (k)(2)(iii), and the operating
limitations for those aircraft permitted the carriage of passengers.
However, the FAA believes that, in the interest of safety, a category
and class rating is necessary when carrying a passenger, regardless of
the aircraft’s airworthiness certificate.  This is because there is an
increase in the number of experimental aircraft being operated in the
NAS, and increased numbers of accidents have been attributed to a lack
of category and class ratings.

A few commenters, including the NTSB, suggested that a sport pilot
should be required to hold a category and class privilege when operating
an experimental light-sport aircraft regardless of whether he or she is
carrying a passenger.  The FAA agrees with these comments and proposed
that a sport pilot, regardless of whether he or she is carrying a
passenger, must hold a specific category and class privilege prior to
operating any light-sport aircraft.  If a sport pilot wishes to exercise
category and class privileges in an aircraft with an experimental
certificate, for which a category or class has not been established, the
FAA will specify in the aircraft’s operating limitations the specific
category and class rating required to operate that aircraft.  The
category and class specified will be based on the category and class of
an aircraft that has operating characteristics similar to that new
aircraft.  The FAA has the authority to limit the carriage of a
passenger in the aircraft’s operating limitations if this is necessary
for safe operation.

The FAA also considered whether a pilot holding a recreational pilot
certificate or higher, while operating an experimental aircraft without
a passenger, should be required to hold a category and class rating.
The FAA does not believe that this is necessary at this time.  The FAA
did not receive any information from commenters to support requiring a
category and class rating while operating an experimental aircraft
without a passenger.  For operations without a passenger, the FAA will
continue to address on a case-by-case basis the specific requirements
for category and class ratings through the operating limitations issued
for each experimental aircraft.

To ensure that pilots currently operating under the existing §61.31
(k)(2)(iii) comply with its revised provisions, the FAA is establishing
a method for giving credit for previous experience gained in an
experimental aircraft.  This is established in the amendments to
§§61.63 (k) and 61.165 (f).  Certificated pilots holding a
recreational pilot certificate or higher who do not have a category and
class rating to operate the experimental aircraft, may apply for a
category and class rating with the limitation “experimental aircraft
only,” and a designation for the make and model aircraft authorized to
be operated.  Pilots seeking this privilege must have logged at least 5
hours of pilot-in-command time in the same category, class, make, and
model of aircraft issued an experimental certificate.  The applicant is
required to receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized flight
instructor who has determined that he or she is proficient to act as
pilot in command of the same category and class of aircraft.  Finally,
the 5 hours of flight time must be logged between September 1, 2004 and
August 31, 2005.  Upon satisfaction of these requirements, the FAA will
issue the applicant a new pilot certificate with the additional category
and class rating and the limitation “experimental aircraft only”
without any further testing.

The FAA believes that the 5 hours of pilot-in-command time received
within the 12-month window ensures recent experience in the category and
class of experimental aircraft that the applicant intends to operate.
This, combined with an endorsement from a flight instructor, gives the
FAA confidence that the applicant has the necessary skills to continue
operating that make and model of experimental aircraft safely.  The FAA
believes this is sufficient to allow these pilots who have been
previously operating without a category and class rating under the
current regulation to continue operations safely.  The FAA believes that
it would be an unnecessary additional burden in these cases to require
fulfilling the otherwise applicable testing requirements for a category
and class rating.

A few commenters, including the NTSB, noted that in the proposed rule
language for §61.31 (k)(2), the FAA did not recognize that the holder
of a sport pilot certificate may operate an aircraft without having the
appropriate category or class rating on the sport pilot certificate.
This was an oversight.  A sport pilot has category and class privileges
that are authorized through endorsements and annotated in the pilot’s
logbook; therefore, an exception must be made in this section for a
sport pilot.  Accordingly, the FAA is adding §61.31 (k)(2)(vi).

Changes

Paragraph (k)(1) is amended in the final rule to incorporate powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft in the list of aircraft for
which a category and class rating is not required if the aircraft is not
type-certificated.  Additionally, the FAA is making an editorial change
to remove the class rating for gliders because this class rating no
longer exists.  In paragraph (k)(2)(iii), the words “experimental or
provisional aircraft type certificate, unless the operation involves
carrying passengers” are designated as paragraphs (A) and (B) and
corrected to read “(A) A provisional type certificate; or

(B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying
a passenger.”

New paragraph (k)(2)(vi) is added.

Section 61.45  Practical tests:  Required aircraft and equipment

Currently, an applicant for a certificate or rating must furnish an
aircraft of U.S. registry with an airworthiness certificate and in a
category specified in §61.45 (a) to conduct a practical test.
Commenters noted that the FAA did not propose a change to this section
to allow use of light-sport category aircraft.  The FAA is therefore
adding references to “light-sport category” to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)
and (a)(2)(i) to correct this oversight.

First, in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), the FAA will allow an applicant to use a
light-sport category aircraft for a practical test because light-sport
category aircraft are designed and manufactured to an FAA-accepted
consensus standard.  Therefore, for the purpose of conducting the entire
flight segment of a practical test, these aircraft are considered
equivalent to an aircraft issued a standard, limited, or primary
category certificate.

Second, to address the addition of light-sport category aircraft to
paragraph (a)(1)(ii), the FAA is providing in paragraph (a)(2)(i), that,
at the discretion of the examiner, an applicant may also use an aircraft
other than one in the standard, limited, or primary category, which are
currently required by (a)(1)(ii), or a light-sport category aircraft.
This makes it possible for an applicant to use an aircraft with an
airworthiness certificate other than that specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) for a practical test.  An examiner could, therefore, permit
the use of an experimental aircraft for a practical test.  The FAA is
leaving use of such an aircraft to the discretion of the examiner
because experimental aircraft are not designed or manufactured to a
specific regulatory standard.

Several commenters stated that the FAA should modify the regulations to
allow the practical test to be administered in a single-seat aircraft.
They indicated that there are many existing single-seat gyroplanes,
fixed-wing aircraft, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control
unregistered ultralight-like aircraft that will be operated under this
rule.  The commenters said that revising §61.45 to allow practical
tests in these aircraft would help many pilots that are flying
single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft to obtain their sport
pilot certificates without incurring the cost of training and testing in
a two-seat aircraft with which they are not familiar.

The FAA agrees with the commenters and is establishing in §61.45 (f)
specific requirements to allow a practical test to be conducted in a
light-sport aircraft that has a single seat.  The FAA notes that an
ultralight pilot who is currently operating a single-seat
ultralight-like aircraft that does not meet the definition of an
ultralight vehicle will need to take a practical test to be issued a
sport pilot certificate to operate that light-sport aircraft.
According to information the FAA received from manufacturers, there are
a number of pilots who intend to purchase single-seat light-sport
aircraft, rather than ultralight vehicles, and this provision will allow
them to take the practical test for the sport pilot certificate in these
aircraft without incurring the cost of additional training and testing
in a two-seat light-sport aircraft.

In the past, the FAA has encountered situations where pilots sought type
ratings or letters of authorization in lieu of type ratings in aircraft
not designed for two occupants.  Testing in those aircraft has been
accomplished in accordance with established FAA guidance.  In these
cases, testing procedures include observation from the ground or from
chase airplanes.

The FAA believes that with certain limitations, it is appropriate to
allow the practical test for a sport pilot certificate to be conducted
from the ground by a DPE or an FAA inspector.  An examiner must agree to
conduct the practical test in a single seat aircraft and must ensure
that the practical test is conducted in accordance with the sport pilot
practical test standards for single seat aircraft.  The pilot will have
a limitation placed on his or her sport pilot certificate limiting
operations to a single-seat light-sport aircraft, and he or she will not
be authorized to carry passengers.  Only a DPE or an FAA inspector is
authorized remove the limitation.  This can be accomplished when the
sport pilot takes a practical test in a two-place light-sport aircraft
and conducts additional tasks identified in the practical test
standards.  It can also be accomplished if the sport pilot completes the
certification requirements for a higher certificate, rating, or
privilege in a two-place aircraft.

The FAA received several comments asking how a flight review required by
§61.56 would be accomplished in a single-seat aircraft.  A sport pilot
who is issued a certificate with a single-seat limitation must complete
a flight review every 24 calendar months, as required by §61.56.  The
flight review is required to establish that a sport pilot still
maintains the knowledge and skills to exercise sport pilot privileges.
There are several methods for accomplishing a flight review under
§61.56.  If the flight review will be accomplished in an aircraft, it
must be in an aircraft with a minimum of two seats, in which the pilot
is rated, and with an authorized instructor.  In addition, the flight
review must be conducted with a current and qualified authorized
instructor who must act as pilot in command during the conduct of the
flight.  Therefore, a flight review cannot be conducted in a single seat
aircraft.

Changes

Paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(i) are revised to add the words
“light-sport category.”

Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is revised to add an exception to new paragraph
(f).

	Paragraph (f) is added to allow practical tests in a single-seat
light-sport aircraft.

Section 61.51  Pilot logbooks (proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 67, 131,
171, 173, and 175)

In the final rule, requirements proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections 67,
131, 171, 173, and 175 are transferred to §61.51 with minor wording
changes.  Several commenters expressed concern about the ability to
carry a logbook in an open-cockpit aircraft.  They suggested that the
FAA not require this.  The FAA agrees with the commenters’ concerns
and notes that the proposed rule permitted pilots to carry either their
logbooks or documented proof of all required endorsements on all
flights.  See the discussion of proposed SFAR No. 89 section 67 in the
NPRM for a complete discussion on what the FAA intended by “documented
proof.”  In the final rule, the FAA is changing the words
“documented proof of all required endorsements” to “other evidence
of required authorized instructor endorsements.”  This language more
closely corresponds to language contained in current §61.51 (i).  In
addition, the FAA is not adopting the sentence in the NPRM that read,
“Documented proof includes a photocopy of the logbook endorsements or
a pre-printed form that includes the endorsements.”  Instead, the FAA
will issue guidance material that will provide examples of what
documents will be considered acceptable as evidence.

Changes

The provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 67, 131, 171, 173, and
175 are transferred to §61.51 with the following changes.  The words
“documented proof of all required endorsements” are changed to
“other evidence of required authorized instructor endorsements.”  In
addition, the FAA is not adopting the sentence in proposed section 67
that would have described the kinds of documents that would have been
accepted as documented proof.

Section 61.52  Use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight
vehicles (proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 135, 153, 175, 177, and 179)

The proposed requirements in SFAR No. 89 sections 135, 153, 175, 177 and
179 for using aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles
(to include two-seat ultralight trainers) and for logging aeronautical
experience to meet the requirements for a sport pilot certificate or for
a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating are moved to
new §61.52.

The FAA received one comment that stated that the agency should not
allow the crediting of ultralight fight time towards higher certificate
levels.  That commenter, however, provided no justification to support
this comment.  The FAA does not agree with this commenter, and the final
rule will permit aeronautical experience obtained in an ultralight
vehicle to be credited towards a sport pilot certificate, a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, and a private pilot
certificate with a weight-shift-control or powered parachute category