Exemption No. 10967

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

UWE GOEHL

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-1212

for an exemption from § 61.109 (j)(4)

of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By email letter received November 15, 2012, Mr. Uwe Goehl, PO Box 50839 Hidd, Kingdom 

of Bahrain, e-mail: uwecavok@yahoo.com, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) for an exemption from the solo flight time requirements in Weight-Shift-Control 

Aircraft, as specified in 14 CFR §61.109 (j)(4), for the issuance of a Private Pilot WeightShift-Control aircraft rating privileges. The proposed exemption would allow Mr. Goehl to 

substitute solo requirements for private pilot weight-shift-control aircraft certificate with time 

acquired with an authorized instructor on board.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.109 (j)(4) prescribes ten hours of solo flight time in weight-shift-control 

aircraft, consisting of at least:

(i) Five hours of solo cross-country time; and

(ii) One solo cross-country flight over 100 nautical miles total distance, with 

landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight being a 

straight line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between takeoff and landing 

locations.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that he has been unable to locate a US-based flight school that is willing 

or able to rent to him a weight-shift-control aircraft to accomplish the solo flight requirements 

primarily because of insurance requirements.
2

He states that since he is not a US citizen and not a US resident he is ineligible to own any 

US-registered aircraft. US citizens typically purchase weight-shift-control aircraft to meet the 

solo requirements.

The petitioner states that if a commercial weight-shift-control aircraft certificate existed, the 

rules for flight experience for this type of certificate, such as airplane single engine land, 

multi-engine, helicopter, gyroplane, powered lift, or glider ratings would allow solo 

experience or time performing the duties of pilot in command to qualify.

The petitioner proposes the following substitution for the solo requirements:

1) Ten hours of solo flight time in a weight-shift-control aircraft registered in a foreign 

contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, with the flights 

having been conducted outside the United States, and 

2) Five hours of cross-country time and one cross-country flight over 100 nautical 

miles total distance with landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of 

the flight being a straight line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between takeoff 

and landing locations, to be completed on a weight-shift-control aircraft performing 

the duties of pilot in command in a weight-shift-control aircraft with an authorized 

instructor on board; or 

3) Five hours of cross-country time and one cross-country flight over 100 nautical 

miles total distance with landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of 

the flight being a straight line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between takeoff 

and landing locations to be completed on a weight-shift-control aircraft registered 

in a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 

with the flights having been conducted outside the United States. 

The petitioner states that granting this request would be in the public interest because he 

would travel to and spend vacation time in the United States to meet the remaining 

aeronautical experience requirements to apply for Private Pilot Weight-Shift-Control 

privileges. 

Furthermore, he would plan to train for the Weight-Shift-Control Sea privileges after having 

earned Private Pilot grade privileges on this category. The public benefactors would include 

but not be limited to the flight schools, flight instructors, hotels, car rental agencies, airlines, 

and restaurants that would benefit from the economic stimulus (i.e., the petitioner’s activities 

for the duration of his travel to and stay in the United States). He also states that it would 

foster the health of the aviation industry by preventing unnecessary barriers to the process of

learning or continuing to fly.
3

Additionally, he states that providing this exemption will not adversely affect safety because 

of the significant amount of aeronautical experience he has in airplanes, gliders, and weightshift-control aircraft, including hundreds of hours of solo flying and flying in cross-country 

operations. 

Furthermore, in proposing to comply with the cross-country flight experience requirement by 

performing the duties of pilot in command in a weight-shift-control aircraft with an authorized 

instructor on board, he would be complying with a regulatory standard that is at the 

Commercial Pilot level for other aircraft categories. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2013,

(78 FR 3068). The FAA received five comments all were in favor of the petition. The 

commenters cited the benefits of the requested relief, including improvements in the sport 

aircraft market, completed weight-shift-control certifications, and more activity for FAA 

designated pilot examiners. Three of the commenters cited the lack of insurance for weightshift-control operations for solo flight training.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s supporting information and the comments 

submitted to the docket and determined that the circumstances presented by the petitioner do 

not justify a grant of exemption. The FAA finds that the petitioner has not shown that a grant 

of exemption would be in the public interest or that a level of safety equivalent to that 

provided by the regulation would be maintained.

The petitioner seeks to have an instructor on board observing his performance of pilot in 

command duties as an alternative to meeting the solo flight time requirements in a weightshift-control aircraft. The FAA adopted the solo requirements so that the applicant would be 

required to gain aeronautical flight experience and develop piloting skills in that aircraft. The 

FAA finds that allowing an applicant to have an instructor on board in place of solo flight 

time would not allow an applicant to develop an equivalent level of piloting skills. The FAA 

has determined that because the applicant is seeking a private pilot weight-shift-control 

aircraft certificate, the required training should address the solo flight time requirements. The 

experience and practical test requirements ensure the competency of the applicant for pilot 

certification. It also demonstrates the applicant’s ability to control the aircraft and conduct 

safe traffic patterns without assistance on board.

The petitioner and commenters cite benefits that would be gained from an exemption, to 

include improvements in the sport aircraft market, completed weight-shift-control 

certifications, and more activity for FAA designated pilot examiners. However, the 

established solo requirements designed to ensure the pilot develops PIC responsibilities for 

the certificate or privilege, far outweigh the nominal benefit to the economy. 

Finally, the petitioner sites his experience as an Airline Transport Pilot with numerous ratings 

and privileges and over 9,000 hours of flight time. The experience gained in these areas is not 
4

comparable to the solo flight time requirements in a weight-shift control aircraft. The FAA 

has determined that the petitioner’s experiences gained in other aircraft would not provide for 

a level of safety commensurate with the requirements of § 61.109 for solo requirements of a 

private pilot weight-shift-control certificate.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that the relief proposed by Uwe Goehl would not an 

equivalent level of safety or be in the public interest. The relief requested would be

inappropriately addressed using the exemption process. Therefore, pursuant to the authority 

contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the 

petition of Uwe Goehl for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.109 (j)(4) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 28, 2014.

//s//

John S. Duncan

Director, 

Flight Standards Service