[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-31871]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 1
Monday, January 3, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Chapter I
[Summary Notice No. PR-93-20]
Petition for Rulemaking; Summary of Petitions Received;
Dispositions of Petitions Issued
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for rulemaking received and of dispositions
of prior petitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the
application, processing, and disposition of petitions for rulemaking
(14 CFR Part 11), this notice contains the substance of a petition for
rulemaking filed by the Experimental Aircraft Association, (EAA). EAA
filed this petition in the form of notice of proposed rulemaking, and
the FAA is publishing the substance of EAA's proposal verbatim, in
order to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this
aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information is intended to
affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. The
FAA is publishing EAA's petition without comment or endorsement.
DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received by March 4, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on any petition in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules
Docket No. 27517, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
The petition, any comments received, and a copy of any final
disposition are filed in the assigned regulatory docket and are
available for examination in the Rules Docket (AGC-10), Room 915G, FAA
Headquarters Building (FOB 10A), 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3132
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Frederick M. Haynes, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-3939.
This notice is published pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (f) of
Sec. 11.27 of part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
11).
Issued in Washington, DC on December 22, 1993.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division.
Petitions for Rulemaking
Docket No.: 27517.
Petitioner: Experimental Aircraft Association.
Regulations Affected: 14 CFR Part 61.
Description of Rulechange Sought:
SUMMARY: Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) submits this NPRM as a
proposal to amend several sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) as they apply to student and recreational pilot activity.
Specifically, student and recreational pilots will be permitted to hold
at least a current third-class medical certificate issued under part 67
of this chapter or certify that he or she has no known medical defect
that makes him or her unable to pilot an aircraft, all certificated
pilots will be permitted the same option when exercising the privileges
of a recreational pilot certificate. Further, the holder of a flight
instructor certificate with an appropriate category and class rating,
while holding at least a current third-class medical certificate issued
under part 67 of this chapter or certifying that he or she has no known
medical defect that makes him or her unable to pilot an aircraft, will
be permitted to instruct student pilots seeking a recreational pilot
certificate or the holder of a recreational pilot certificate seeking
advanced training. The proposed amendments will permit additional
flight activity, encouraged increased proficiency by lowering the cost
of recreational flying and assist in the revitalization of general and
sport aviation by relieving a burdensome and expensive regulation,
without a degradation of aviation safety. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) publishes this NPRM without comment.
Background
Current medical certification requirements have existed for decades
and have remained unchanged in the face of medical advancement. In
fact, accident summary data from 1986 through 1992 indicates that the
percentage of accidents involving medical causal factors is lower for
those recreational type activities that do not require medical
certification than those activities that do require medical
certification. During those seven years, there were 761 accidents in
lighter-than-air aircraft and sailplanes. These operations do not
require FAA medical certification. Only one of these 761 accidents
showed a medical cause resulting in a .13% of total accidents. Of
general aviation operations requiring medical certification, there were
46,976 total accidents, 99 of which (.21%) showed medical cause. During
this same time frame, medical causal accidents as a part of the total
were .19% for amateur-built aircraft and .16% for airplanes less than
12,500 pounds. A safety problem is not evident for basic aircraft used
for limited recreational purposes. (See the following chart):
Accident Summary
[January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1992]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Total accidents Medical cause accidents medical
all causes accidents causal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighter-than-
air........... 327 0 0.00
Sailplanes..... 434 1 0.23
All ``No
Medical Req.'' 761 1 0.13
Rotorcraft..... 2126 5 0.24
Other < 12,500.="" 36831="" 58="" 0.16="" other=""> 12,500. 5983 32 0.53
Amateur-built.. 2036 4 0.20
All ``Medical
Req.''........ 46976 99 0.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data source: Ben Morrow (ACE-103)
This proposal would amend the regulations to permit qualified
airmen to operate U.S. registered general aviation airplanes for sport
and recreational purposes with self-certification medicals. Pilots
would also be permitted to receive appropriate instruction from
appropriately-rated individuals with an active interest in small
aircraft operated for sport and recreation. Current requirements for a
third class medical certificate for individuals engaged in recreational
flying in small, slow airplanes is without justification from a safety
standpoint. There is documented information that safety is not being
compromised by the operation of other recreational aircraft (such as
sailplanes and hot air balloons) as well as ultralight vehicles by
those not regulatorily encumbered by a requirement for a third class
medical certificate.
There is widespread concern about the current health and future
growth opportunities for sport and general aviation. Sport and general
aviation are the foundation of the entire air transportation system in
the United States. The activities of sport and general aviation provide
the support of the aviation infrastructure including maintenance,
airport operators, airport service companies (fixed base operators),
and the pipeline of requirement replacement parts. It is general and
sport aviation that provide the involvement of the majority of
individuals involved in aviation; provide the training necessary for
all segments of aviation, including business, corporate, commercial and
military aviation; and provide the proficiency for most flight
personnel.
Trends and statistics of new airplane manufacturing and pilot
certificates issued are well known to the FAA and to the aviation
community. These statistics along with a deteriorating condition of
airport facilities availability clearly show the current state of
affairs for general aviation.
Well publicized as contributing factors to this condition are
issues of product liability for aircraft and parts manufacturing, and
operating cost factors. Other major factors--not so well publicized--
are those of regulatory burden and costs. These regulatory costs
continue to increase through requirements for additional flight
training, mandatory equipment on aircraft, mandatory inspections and
airspace requiring avoidance which results in added flight time and
operating expense. All of these economic cost factors are doubly
burdensome on the recreational segment of general aviation since these
costs are not deductible or justified as a ``business expense.''
Opening the opportunity of flight through this amendment could assist
in reversing the negative trends in general aviation.
The Proposal
This NPRM proposes to amend part 61 of the FAR (14 CFR Part 61) to
permit student pilots seeking a recreational pilot certificate, the
holder of a recreational pilot certificate, and those appropriately
certificated pilots (private, commercial and airline transport pilot)
while exercising the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate to
operate U.S. registered general aviation aircraft (as limited by the
recreational pilot certificate) with at least a third class medical
certificate issued under part 67 of the FAR or to certify that he or
she has no known medical defects that makes him or her unable to pilot
an aircraft. Additionally, a certificated flight instructor with at
least a third class medical certificate issued under part 67 of the FAR
or certify that he or she has no known medical defects that makes him
or her unable to pilot an aircraft may give flight instruction to
student pilots seeking a recreational pilot certificate or the holder
of a recreational pilot certificate seeking advanced training.
The exercise of the recreational pilot privileges permitting flight
without the requirement for a third class medical certification will
continue to be very limited in scope. Section 61.101 ``Recreational
pilot privileges and limitations'' presently states:
(a) A recreational pilot may--
(1) Carry not more than one passenger; and
(2) Share the operating expenses of the flight with the passenger.
(3) Act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft only when--
(i) The flight is within 50 nautical miles of an airport at which
the pilot has received ground and flight instruction from an authorized
instructor certificated under this part;
(ii) The flight lands at an airport within 50 nautical miles of the
departure airport; and
(iii) The pilot carries, in that pilot's personal possession, a
logbook that has been endorsed by the instructor attesting to the
instruction required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, a
recreational pilot may not act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft--
(1) That is certificated--
(i) For more than four occupants;
(ii) With more than one powerplant;
(iii) With a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower; or
(iv) With retractable landing gear.
(2) That is classified as a glider, airship, or balloon;
(3) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or
hire;
(4) For compensation or hire;
(5) In furtherance of a business;
(6) Between sunset and sunrise;
(7) In airspace in which communication with air traffic control is
required;
(8) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL,
whichever is higher;
(9) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute
miles;
(10) Without visual reference to the surface;
(11) On a flight outside the United States;
(12) To demonstrate that aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer;
(13) That is used in a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by
a charitable organization; and
(14) That is towing any object.
(c) A recreational pilot may not act as a required pilot flight
crew member on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required
by the type certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which
the flight is conducted, except when receiving flight instruction from
an authorized flight instructor on board an airship and no person other
than a required flight crew member is carried on the aircraft.
(d) A recreational pilot who has logged fewer than 400 flight hours
and who has not logged pilot-in-command time in an aircraft within the
preceding 180 days may not act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft until
the pilot has received flight instruction from an authorized flight
instructor who certifies in the pilot's logbook that the pilot is
competent to act as pilot-in-command of the aircraft. This requirement
can be met in combination with the requirements of section 61.56 and
61.57 at the discretion of the instructor.
(e) The recreational pilot certificate issued under this subpart
carries the notation ``Holder does not meet ICAO requirements.''
(f) For the purpose of obtaining additional certificates or
ratings, while under the supervision of an authorized flight
instructor, a recreational pilot may fly as sole occupant of an
aircraft--
(1) For which the pilot does not hold an appropriate category or
class rating;
(2) Within airspace that requires communication with air traffic
control; or
(3) Between sunset and sunrise, provided the flight or surface
visibility is at least 5 statute miles.
(g) In order to fly solo as provided in paragraph (f) of this
section, the recreational pilot must meet the appropriate aeronautical
knowledge and flight training requirements of section 61.87 for that
aircraft. When operating an aircraft under the conditions specified in
paragraph (f) of this section, the recreational pilot shall carry the
logbook that has been endorsed for each flight by an authorized pilot
instructor who--
(1) Has given the recreational pilot instruction in the make and
model of aircraft in which the solo flight is to be made;
(2) Has found that the recreational pilot has met the applicable
requirements of section 61.87; and
(3) Has found that the recreation pilot is competent to make solo
flights in accordance with the logbook endorsement.
(h) Notwithstanding paragraph 61.101(a)(3), a recreational pilot
may for the purpose of obtaining an additional certificate or rating,
while under the supervision of an authorized flight instructor, act as
pilot-in-command of an aircraft on a flight in excess of 50 nautical
miles from an airport at which flight instruction is received if the
pilot meets the flight training requirements of section 61.93 and in
that pilot's personal possession is the logbook that has been endorsed
by an authorized instructor attesting that:
(1) The recreational pilot has received instruction in solo cross-
country flight and the training described in section 61.93 applicable
to the aircraft to be operated, and is competent to make solo cross-
country flights in the make and model of aircraft to be flown, and
(2) The instructor has reviewed the student's preflight planning
and preparation for the specific solo cross-country flight and the
recreational pilot is prepared to make the flight safely under the
known circumstances and subject to any conditions listed in the logbook
by the instructor.
The only amendments to section 61.101 by this proposal would be to
provide for the removal of the 50 nautical mile limitation as an option
for the holder of a recreational pilot certificate. To remove this
limitation the recreational pilot would be required to meet the flight
training requirements of section 61.93, the aeronautical experience
requirements of sections 61.109(a) (1) and (b) or 61.113(a)(1) (i) and
(a)(2)(i), as appropriate, and receives and endorsement from an
authorized flight instructor in his or her logbook to remove the 50
mile limitation.
It is proposed that any certificated pilot exercising the flight
privileges of a recreational pilot certificate would be limited by the
privileges and limitations of a recreational pilot certificate. These
limitations provide an equivalent level of safety in that operations of
basic aircraft for sport and recreation only are permitted. Of course,
for those pilots who have received flight training and certification
for cross-country, night flight and flight into airspace requiring
communication with air traffic control--private, commercial and airline
transport--those specific recreational pilot limitations would not
apply.
EAA unequivocally states that this rulemaking does not promote the
operation of aircraft envisioned under this proposed amendment to part
61 could only arise out of the exercise of an FAA pilot certificate,
the customary self-certification of a proper physiological condition
prior to flight will ensure aircraft operations by only medically
qualified airmen. Further, the usual pilot-peer-group observation, as
well as typical FAA surveillance activities, will act as a cross-check
to identify the rare individual who, when not medically qualified,
might attempt to operate an aircraft.
EAA endorses and encourages all FAA enforcement efforts which
promote safe flying activities. Flying is a privilege which requires
responsibility on the part of the airmen. Historically, those who have
invested the time and money to earn an FAA Airman Certificate display
the responsibility to avoid operations which could lead to the loss of
that certificate. Those unwilling to act accordingly can lose their
privileges to FAA enforcement measures. While EAA promotes the
expansion of flying privileges to a greater number of participants, it
does not endorse flight by those medically unqualified to act as pilot-
in-command of an aircraft.
It should be specifically noted that the federal government, in
section 67.19(c), already acknowledges the need for a private pilot
``to accept reasonable risks to his or her person and property that is
not acceptable in the exercise of commercial or airline transport
privileges . . . '' Further, a pilot must ``self certify'' his or her
physiological condition for the safe conduct of each flight prior to
exercising the privileges of any pilot certificate. The immediate
proposal is based on these existing regulations.
Additional Issues and Statements
There are a number of issues concerning the subject of flight
instruction under this amendment. These include medical qualifications
of the individual providing the instruction, documentation for student
pilot certification and transition of an individual instructed only for
recreational pilot purposes to a fully-privileged private pilot.
There has been discussion as to what qualifications will be
necessary to provide instruction in this situation. This question has
arisen largely because: a number of sportplane models currently
undergoing FAA certification have been available in the past as ``two-
place ultralight trainers;'' and, under an exemption to the FARs for
flight instruction, individuals without an FAA flight instructor
certificate and FAA medical certificate have been permitted to provide
flight instruction.
Since under the amendments called for in this NPRM, the aircraft
will be a certificated airplane being operated by a certificated pilot
or candidate for a pilot's certificate, flight instruction would be
appropriately given an individual holding an FAA flight instructor
certificate. The medical certification of a flight instructor in this
situation will be as currently required by the FAR. Section 61.19(d)(1)
provides that ``a flight instructor certificate is effective only while
the holder has a current pilot certificate and a medical certificate
appropriate to the pilot privileges being exercised . . . '' Therefore,
an individual with a current CFI certificate, and otherwise
appropriately rated, but without a medical certificate, could provide
instruction to a candidate for a recreational pilot certificate or to
the holder of a recreational pilot certificate seeking additional
training. Additionally, current regulations permit that flight
instructions can be provided by a CFI without a valid medical
certificate if that instruction is being provided to a certificated
individual with a current medical certificate who is qualified to serve
as pilot-in-command of that aircraft. An example of this would be a
``make and model'' check-out or a biennial or annual flight review.
Further, this amendment would not preclude an individual from
providing ultralight vehicle flight instruction under an FAA-recognized
ultralight training program in a vehicle make and model identical to a
sportplane that is being operated legally as an ultralight vehicle
trainer. Therefore, this action should in no way affect the existence
of ultralight vehicle trainer. Therefore, this action should in no way
affect the existence of ultralight vehicle training opportunities for
individuals participating in any FAA-recognized ultralight training
programs.
As this amendment would eliminate the need for the paperwork
involved in the issuance of a third class medical, there would need to
be a method provided for documenting the student pilot status.
Currently a medical certificate (issued by an AME) has a dual purpose
of providing a student pilot's license after appropriate endorsements
by a flight instructor. A replacement of this method would have to be
provided. EAA recommends the system currently in place for sailplane
student pilots, with the student pilot license being issued by an FAA
inspector or designated pilot examiner.
The final issue is that of transition by an individual from
recreational pilot privileges to a private pilot certificate. Should an
individual desire to expand to the full privileges of a private pilot
(for example, to operate at night and/or in areas requiring
communication with air traffic control), additional flight instruction,
logbook entries and examination as currently delineated in the FARs
would be required. All instructional flight hours received and other
logged hours would be credited towards any regulations necessary to
provide for the additional privileges.
Regulatory Evaluation
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
This section summarizes the regulatory evaluation on the proposed
amendments to 14 CFR part 61--to provide expanded recreational flight
privileges. This summary and full regulatory evaluation quantify, to
the extent practicable, estimated costs to the private sector,
consumers, and Federal, State and local governments as well as
anticipated benefits.
Executive Order 12291, February 17, 1981, directs Federal agencies
to promulgate new regulations or modify existing regulations only if
potential benefits to society for each regulatory change outweighs
potential costs. The Executive Order requires the preparation of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis of all ``major'' rules except those
responding to emergency situations or other narrowly defined
emergencies. A ``major'' rule is one that is likely to result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase
in consumer costs, or a significant adverse effect on competition, or
that is highly controversial.
This proposed rule is not ``major'' as defined in the Executive
Order; therefore, a full regulatory impact analysis that includes the
identification and evaluation of cost-reducing alternatives to this
proposed rule has not been prepared. This section contains a Regulatory
Flexibility Determination required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(P.L. 96-354) and an International Trade Impact Assessment.
Benefit Analysis
Activity under the amended regulation would be limited to
recreational pilot privileges and limitations. The equivalent level of
safety will be assured due to a number of factors:
The flight activities proposed compare reasonably with the
complexity of existing operations of hot air balloons, gliders and
motorized gliders--that is, for recreational purposes (and appropriate
flight instruction) only. Other private pilot, commercial and airline
transport pilot privileges include the opportunity for IFR operations
and operation of complex aircraft. These complexities which include
higher stress situations than recreational flying, would not be
permitted under the amended regulation; thereby ensuring a current
level of safety for those operations.
This amendment would permit holders of airman certificates
to operate airplanes of less complexity that are currently operated by
those same individuals. The amendment would permit certificated private
pilots, for example, to operate a simple, light sportplane or
equivalent without a valid third class medical certificate. The
complexity of the operation would, in fact, be limited by the
regulations governing recreational pilots. If such an individual does
hold an appropriate FAA medical certificate, they may exercise the full
privileges of their certificate in any aircraft in which they are
rated.
Operation under this amendment would be limited to sport
and recreational purposes only with the understanding that flight
instruction could be received by such an individual in furtherance of
these limited privileges.
An equivalent level of safety should also be evident since
the operation of mechanically similar two-seat aircraft has been
ongoing for a number of years (in ultralight flight training under
exemptions to Part 103 of the FAR) without any significant accident or
incidents caused by pilot incapacitation.
Further, safety would be enhanced as a result of the increased
flying that will be promoted by this regulatory relief. It is commonly
known that increased proficiency contributes to safe flight operations.
By the encouragement of more flight activity, this proposal will
improve aviation safety.
This amendment is in the public interest in that it serves as only
an option--not a requirement--for appropriately qualified individuals
to operate aircraft with specific limitations. In this regard, the
requested action would not serve as a burden nor infringement on any
other individual or group of individuals.
Finally, the amendment would be the opportunity to assist in the
revitalization of the economically distressed general aviation
industry. Singularly, the requested action will not fix all of general
aviation ills, however, in conjunction with and support of other
activities, such as the eminent availability of new aircraft models
under the primary category sportplane certification opportunities, the
proposal will serve a vital function in the larger picture of general
aviation revitalization. As noted earlier, general and sport aviation
are the foundation upon which the United States air transportation
system rests. This community provides the flight training, proficiency
and infrastructure support that comprise the total system. Additional
justification of the public value of healthy general aviation activity
in the United States can be found in the FAA's General Aviation Action
Plan.
Cost Analysis
Considerable regulatory and economic relief would be provided by
this amendment. It is conservatively estimated that ten percent of all
certificated pilots would take advantage of the reduced regulatory
burden of this amendment in exchange for the limited recreational
privileges. Assuming a third class medical examination to cost $50.00,
this amendment to the regulation would relieve $3.415 million in
regulatory cost every two years (based on 683,000 pilots).
Additionally, the thousands of pilots that have discontinued flying and
certificated flight instructors who have discontinued instructing over
the years for a variety of personal and fiscal reasons, may be
encouraged to return to the ranks of those enjoying flying as a
recreational outlet and teaching flying at that level. This would also
provide tens of thousands of dollars of regulatory relief per year.
Added public benefit would be gained by eventual reduction in FAA
manpower to administer the airmen medical certification records. While
this ``government cost savings may not occur during the near term,
eventually the rule change would reduce the administrative burden of
medical certification for certain limited flight activities thereby
reducing costs for the FAA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511, there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) ensures that small
entities are not unnecessarily and disproportionately burdened by
Government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules that
may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The small entities that this amendment could potentially affect are
the aviation service providers (fixed base operators) and suppliers of
general aviation parts. These providers and suppliers will be
positively affected by the increased flight activity that results from
this rulemaking. The additional requirement for replacement parts,
fuel, flight training and maintenance services will be a positive
economic benefit from the flight activity.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The proposed rule would have negligible effect on the sale of
foreign aviation products or services in the United States. However,
there could be a positive indirect impact on the sale of U.S. products
or services in foreign countries. This indirect benefit will result
from the positive impact this regulation will have on the fiscal health
of U.S. product and service providers as an outcome of increased flight
activity.
Federalism Implications
This proposed regulation would not have substantial direct effects
on the states, on the relationship between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with
Executive Order 12612, preparation of a Federalism assessment is not
warranted.
Conclusion
In view of the overall benefit to aviation, EAA believes that the
proposed rule to provide expanded recreational flight privileges is
cost-beneficial. For the reasons discussed under ``Regulatory
Evaluation,'' EAA has determined that this proposed regulation is not a
``major rule'' under Executive Order 12291 and is not a ``significant
rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). It is certified that this proposal, if adopted,
would have a positive impact on a number of small entities.
A summary of the petitioner's proposed changes follows:
Sec. 61.3(c) Medical certificate. Except for free balloon
pilots piloting balloons, glider pilots piloting gliders, and pilots
piloting aircraft while exercising the privileges and limitations in
Sec. 61.101 for recreational pilot, no person may * * *
Sec. 61.83(c) Hold at least a current third-class medical
certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or, in the case of
glider or free balloon operations or while seeking a recreational
pilot certificate, certify that he or she has no known * * *
Sec. 61.85(b) An FAA operations inspector or designated pilot
examiner, accompanied by a current FAA medical certificate, or in
the case of an application for a glider or free balloon or
recreational pilot certificate it may be accompanied * * *
Sec. 61.96(c) Hold at least a current third-class medical
certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or certify that he
or she has no known medical defect that makes him or her unable to
pilot the aircraft.
Sec. 61.103(3) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this
section, act as pilot-in-command * * *
Sec. 61.101(i) Notwithstanding paragraph 61.101(a)(3), a
recreational pilot may operate an aircraft in excess of 50 nautical
miles without authorization by a flight instructor for each flight
when the pilot meets the flight training requirements of Sec. 61.93,
the aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.109(a)(1) and
(b) or 61.113(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(1), as appropriate, and receives
an endorsement in his or her logbook to remove the 50 mile
limitation from an authorized flight instructor.
[FR Doc. 93-31871 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
