80310 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1The FAA uses the term ‘‘public aircraft 

operation’’ (PAO) to refer to public aircraft 

operations in general. For purposes of this 

rulemaking document, uses the abbreviation ‘‘PAO’’ 

to refer to both the singular and plural of those 

operations. The FAA considers the two terms to be 

synonymous. 

2As discussed elsewhere in this document, the 

FAA notes that section 826 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118–63) 

requires that, notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, aircraft under the direct operational control 

of forestry and fire protection agencies are eligible 

to log pilot flight times, if the flight time was 

acquired by the pilot while engaged on an official 

forestry or fire protection flight, in the same manner 

as aircraft under the direct operational control of a 

Federal, State, county, or municipal law 

enforcement agency. Section 826 further stated that 

this provision shall be applied as if enacted on 

October 5, 2018. As noted, this final rule meets, and 

expands upon, the requirements of section 826. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 61, and 91 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–1351; Amdt. Nos. 1– 

77, 11–68, 61–156, 91–378] 

RIN 2120–AL61 

Public Aircraft Logging of Flight Time, 

Training in Certain Aircraft Holding 

Special Airworthiness Certificates, and 

Flight Instructor Privileges 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: As directed by the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2018, the FAA 

will allow pilots conducting public 

aircraft operations to credit their flight 

time towards FAA civil regulatory 

requirements. Additionally, consistent 

with the James M. Inhofe National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2023, this final rule will amend the 

operating rules for experimental aircraft 

to permit certain flight training, testing, 

and checking in these aircraft without a 

letter of deviation authority. As directed 

in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, 

the same relief will be extended to 

certain flight training, testing, and 

checking in limited category, primary 

category, and experimental light sport 

aircraft. This final rule also revises 

miscellaneous amendments related to 

recent flight experience, flight instructor 

privileges, flight training in certain 

aircraft holding special airworthiness 

certificates, and the related prohibitions 

on conducting these activities for 

compensation or hire. These changes 

will clarify existing regulatory 

requirements, align the regulations with 

current industry practice, and ensure 

compliance with the FAA 

Reauthorization Acts of 2018 and 2024 

and the James M. Inhofe National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2023. 

DATES: Effective December 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Cappel, General Aviation and 

Commercial Division, Flight Standards 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–1100; email 

erin.cappel@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used In This Document 

ATC: Air Traffic Control 

ELSA: Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft 

ICAO: International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

IFR: Instrument Flight Rules 

LODA: Letter of Deviation Authority 

NAS: National Airspace System 

NPRM: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board 

PAO: public aircraft operation(s) 

PIC: Pilot-in-command 

SIC: Second-in-command 

SLSA: Special Light-Sport Aircraft 

VFR: Visual Flight Rules 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

B. Changes Made in This Final Rule 

C. Summary of the Cost and Benefits 

II. Authority for the Rulemaking 

III. Background 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

B. Overview of Comments Received 

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final 

Rule 

A. Logging Flight Time in Public Aircraft 

Operations (§ 61.51) 

B. Revision of the Definition of ‘‘Public 

Aircraft’’ (§ 1.1) 

C. Exceptions to Recent Flight Experience 

for Pilot in Command (§ 61.57(e)) 

D. Flight Instructor Privileges (§§ 61.193 

and 61.413) 

E. Flight Training is Carrying a Person for 

Compensation or Hire 

F. New Definition of Passenger (§ 61.1(b)) 

and Related Changes (§ 61.57) 

G. Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft 

(§ 91.319(e)) 

H. Exception To Operating Certain Aircraft 

for the Purposes of Flight Training, 

Flightcrew Member Checking, or 

Flightcrew Member Testing (§ 91.326) 

I. Miscellaneous Issues in Part 91 

J. Severability 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility 

G. Environmental Analysis 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access and Filing 

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

As directed by section 517 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 

115–254), this final rule allows pilots 

conducting public aircraft operations 

(PAO) under Title 49 of the United 

States Code (49 U.S.C.) 40102(a)(41) and 

40125 to credit their flight time towards 

FAA civil regulatory requirements. 

While section 517 requires the FAA to 

issue regulations to allow the logging of 

flight time in aircraft used in PAO 1

under direct operational control of 

forestry and fire protection agencies,2

this final rule will permit all PAO to be 

eligible for logging of flight time. 

Moreover, this final rule expands the 

regulatory framework to allow pilots 

serving in PAO as second-in-command 

(SIC) to log flight time under certain 

circumstances. 

This final rule clarifies recent flight 

experience requirements and authorized 

flight training activities under part 61. 

This final rule adds § 61.57(e)(5) to 

codify an exception that would enable 

a person receiving flight training to act 

as pilot-in-command (PIC) in certain 

circumstances, even if that person does 

not meet the recent flight experience 

requirements for carrying passengers 

under § 61.57(a) or (b). Additionally, 

the FAA adds ‘‘maintaining or 

improving skills for certificated pilots’’ 

to the list of flight instructor privileges 

in §§ 61.193(a)(7) and 61.413(a)(6) to 

clarify that flight instructors are 

authorized to conduct certain 

specialized and elective training. 

Finally, this final rule revises the 

definition of ‘‘public aircraft’’ to align 

with the revised definition of 49 U.S.C. 

40125(a)(2), which was amended by 

section 923 of the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2024. 

Furthermore, this final rule amends 

part 91 operating rules to explicitly set 

forth prohibited operations and create 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80311 

3See Public Aircraft Logging of Flight Time, 

Training in Certain Aircraft Holding Special 

Airworthiness Certificates, and Flight Instructor 

Privileges, 88 FR 41194 (June 23, 2023). 

limited exceptions to the general 

prohibition on carriage of persons for 

compensation or hire for flight training, 

testing, and checking in aircraft holding 

certain special airworthiness certificates 

consistent with section 5604 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA). This final rule also removes 

the requirement for owners (and certain 

persons affiliated with owners) to obtain 

a letter of deviation authority (LODA) to 

accomplish flight training in their 

aircraft, as directed by section 814 of the 

FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, and 

to clarify the general prohibition on 

operating aircraft with certain special 

airworthiness certificates while carrying 

persons or property for compensation or 

hire. Additionally, this final rule 

expands certain flight training, testing, 

and checking abilities in limited 

category, primary category, and 

experimental light sport aircraft. The 

FAA anticipates that the changes will 

provide greater access to specialized 

training in aircraft with special 

airworthiness certificates. 

B. Changes Made in This Final Rule 

After considering comments on the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 3

provided by the public, this final rule 

implements several changes from what 

was proposed in the NPRM. Table 1 

provides a brief summary of all 

regulatory changes associated with this 

rulemaking, including those changes 

from the NPRM to final rule. The 

changes are discussed in more detail in 

Section IV of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY TEXT CHANGES

Provision Regulatory citation 

(14 CFR) Proposed action Final rule action 

Definitions .................................... § 1.1 ................................. No proposed changes .......................................... Revises the definition of ‘‘public aircraft’’. 

Applicability and definitions .......... § 61.1(b) ........................... No proposed changes .......................................... Amends § 61.1(b) to define ‘‘passenger’’ as any 

person on board an aircraft other than a crewmember, FAA personnel, manufacturer personnel required for type certification, or a person receiving or providing flight training, 

checking, or testing as authorized by part 61. 

Pilot logbooks ............................... § 61.51(f)(4) ..................... Clarifies that a person designated as second-incommand (SIC) by a government entity may 

log SIC time if the aircraft used was a large 

aircraft as defined in § 1.1, a turbo-jet powered 

airplane, or if the aircraft holds or originally 

held a type certificate that requires a second 

pilot.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 61.51(f)(4)(i) .................. Specifies that SIC time logged under paragraph 

(f)(4) may not be used to meet the aeronautical experience requirements for the private or commercial pilot certificates or an instrument rating.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 61.51(f)(4)(ii) .................. Delineates that an applicant for an air transportation pilot (ATP) certificate who logs SIC time 

under § 61.51(f)(4) is issued an ATP certificate 

with a limitation.

Modifies the text to specify that an ATP applicant 

only needs a limitation added to their ATP certificate in accordance with ICAO requirements 

if that applicant logs second in command time 

in an aircraft that is not type certificated for two 

pilots; adds reference to § 61.161. 

§ 61.51(j)(4) ...................... Allows logging of flight time for pilots engaged in 

any PAO in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

40102(a)(41) and 40125.

Adopted as proposed. 

Recent flight experience: Pilot in 

command.

§ 61.57(a)(1) and (b)(1) ... No proposed changes .......................................... Revises ‘‘passengers’’ to ‘‘persons’’ due to new 

§ 61.1 definition of ‘‘passenger.’’ 

§ 61.57(e)(5) ..................... Provides an exception to § 61.57(a) and (b) enabling a pilot to regain recent flight experience 

with a flight instructor on board.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 61.57(e)(6) ..................... No proposed change ............................................ Adds an exception to § 61.57(a) and (b) to harmonize with § 61.47(c). 

Aeronautical experience: Airplane 

category rating.

§ 61.159(e) ....................... Allows a pilot to credit SIC time logged under 

PAO toward the total time for an ATP certificate.

Adopted as proposed. 

Aeronautical experience: Rotorcraft category and helicopter 

class rating.

§ 61.161(d) ....................... Allows a pilot to credit SIC time logged under 

PAO toward the total time for an ATP certificate.

Adopted as proposed. 

Flight Instructor Privileges ........... §§ 61.193(a) and 

61.413(a).

Clarifies that, within the limits of their certificates, 

authorized flight instructors may conduct 

ground and flight training, and certain checking 

events, in addition to issuing endorsements.

Revises the introductory paragraph of 

§ 61.413(a) to mirror the language provided in 

§ 61.193(a) to ensure consistency. Otherwise 

adopted as proposed. 

§§ 61.193(a)(7) and 

61.413(a)(6).

Clarifies that flight instructors are authorized to 

conduct certain specialized and elective training.

Adopted as proposed. 

§§ 61.193(c) and 

61.413(c).

Clarifies that the privileges afforded to authorized 

flight instructors under these provisions do not 

permit operations that would require an air carrier or operating certificate or specific authorization from the Administrator.

Adopted as proposed. 

Limited category civil aircraft: Operating limitations.§ 91.315 ........................... Adds new § 91.315(a) through (d) to clarify operations that may not be conducted while carrying persons or property for hire and directs 

stakeholders to new § 91.326.

Adopted as proposed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80312 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY TEXT CHANGES—Continued 

Provision Regulatory citation 

(14 CFR) Proposed action Final rule action 

Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.§ 91.319(a) ....................... Revises the introductory text to include a reference to § 91.326.Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.319(a)(2) .................. Revises the broad language in § 91.319(a)(2) regarding the operation of experimental aircraft 

carrying persons or property for compensation 

or hire to further clarify its intent.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.319(d)(3) .................. Replaces ‘‘air traffic control (ATC)’’ with ‘‘control 

tower.’’.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.319(e), (e)(1), and 

(e)(2).

Removes the date restriction on flight training in 

these aircraft and cross-references proposed 

§ 91.326.

• Amends the introductory text by directly referencing light-sport aircraft and moves the exception language into paragraph (e)(1). 

• Modifies § 91.319(e)(2) by directly referencing 

light-sport aircraft. 

• Adds language to be inclusive of aircraft certificated under § 21.191(i) for use in flight training. 

§ 91.319(f) ........................ Moves the exception language into new paragraph (f)(1). Adds new paragraph (f)(2) to 

allow solo flights in accordance with a training 

program included as part of the deviation authority specified under § 91.326(b).

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.319(f)(2) .................... Adds language to permit training in certain experimental light-sport aircraft for compensation 

or hire through existing deviation authority in 

accordance with proposed § 91.326(b).

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.319(h) ....................... Removes the current deviation authority and reserves the paragraph.Adopted as proposed. 

Primary Category Airworthiness 

Certificates.

§ 91.325(a) ....................... Adds new paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) to clarify 

operations that may not be conducted while 

carrying persons or property for hire.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.325(b) ....................... Adds a reference to § 91.326(a) to the introductory language. Enables primary category aircraft to be used for flight training, checking, 

and testing without the need to obtain deviation authority.

Corrects reference to § 91.326(c) instead of 

§ 91.326(a) and otherwise adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.325(c) ....................... Adds new § 91.326(c) to permit primary category 

aircraft maintained by FAA certificated mechanics or authorized repair stations to be operated for compensation or hire for the purposes of conducting flight training, checking, 

and testing without deviation authority or an 

exemption.

Adopted as proposed. 

Exception to operating certain aircraft for the purposes of flight 

training, flightcrew member 

checking, or flightcrew member 

testing.

§ 91.326(a) ....................... Adds new § 91.326 to provide who may receive 

and provide flight training, checking, and testing without deviation authority and to specify 

when deviation authority is required for these 

operations.

• Adds the title ‘‘General.’’ 

• Modifies the language to specify that, notwithstanding the prohibitions in §§ 91.315, 

91.319(a), and 91.325, a person may conduct 

flight training, checking, or testing in a limited 

category aircraft, experimental aircraft, or primary category aircraft under the provisions of 

this section. 

• Moves the § 91.326(a) operations not requiring 

a LODA to § 91.326(c)(1). 

Exception to Operating Certain 

Aircraft for Compensation or 

Hire.

§ 91.326(a)(1) .................. Prohibits the authorized instructor from providing 

both the training and the aircraft.

Redesignates the proposed language as 

§ 91.326(c)(1)(i). 

§ 91.326(a)(2) .................. Prohibits any person from broadly offering the 

aircraft as available for the activity.

Redesignates the proposed language as 

§ 91.326(c)(1)(ii). 

§ 91.326(a)(3) .................. Specifies that no person would be permitted to 

receive compensation for use of the aircraft for 

a specific flight during which flight training, 

checking, or testing was accomplished, other 

than expenses for owning, operating, and 

maintaining the aircraft.

Redesignates the proposed language as 

§ 91.326(c)(1)(iii). 

§ 91.326(b) ....................... Provides that any person who wants to conduct 

flight training, checking, or testing in limited 

category and experimental aircraft outside the 

restrictions and limitations of proposed 

§ 91.326(a) and (c) may apply for deviation 

authority.

Changes proposed title to ‘‘Operations requiring 

a letter of deviation authority.’’ Removes the 

reference to § 91.326(a). 

§ 91.326(b)(1) .................. Clarifies that no person may operate under this 

section without a LODA.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.326(b)(2) .................. Enables the FAA to cancel or amend a LODA if 

it determines that the deviation holder has 

failed to comply with the conditions and limitations or at any time if the Administrator determines that the deviation is no longer necessary or in the interest of safety.

Adds language to § 91.326(b)(2) to memorialize 

the Administrator’s authority to deny an application for a LODA if it would not be in the interest of safety or is unnecessary. 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(i) through 

(ix).

Enumerates the items an applicant would be required to include in their request for deviation 

authority.

Removes § 91.326(b)(3)(vi) and otherwise adopted as proposed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80313 

4The FAA does not maintain counts of pilots 

who fly PAO for federal, state, and local 

governments and there is insufficient data for the 

FAA to estimate the number of pilots affected by 

this final rule. See ‘‘How to Become a Government 

Pilot’’ in Flying Magazine by James Wynbrandt, 

Dec. 13, 2017. Available at: www.flyingmag.com/ 

how-to-become-government-pilot/ Last accessed Jul. 

22, 2022. 

5This requirement is discussed in further detail 

in section V. of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF REGULATORY TEXT CHANGES—Continued 

Provision Regulatory citation 

(14 CFR) Proposed action Final rule action 

§ 91.326(b)(4) .................. Allows the Administrator to continue to prescribe 

additional conditions and limitations in LODAs 

for experimental aircraft and extend that allowance to LODAs issued for training, testing, and 

checking in limited category aircraft when necessary for safety.

Adds certain conditions and limitations in new 

§ 91.326(b)(4)(i) through (viii). 

§ 91.326(b)(5) .................. Limits the persons permitted to be on board an 

aircraft during operations under a LODA to authorized flight instructor, designated examiner, 

person receiving flight training or being 

checked or tested, or persons essential for the 

safe operation.

Allows up to two trainee observers to be carried 

in operations conducted under a LODA, provided the carriage is not prohibited by any 

other regulation, the observer is enrolled in in 

a LODA training course for the same aircraft, 

and the observation takes place from a 

forwardmost observer seat with an unobstructed view of the flightdeck. 

§ 91.326(b)(6) .................. Specifies that the Administrator may limit the 

types of training, testing, and checking authorized under this deviation authority.

Adopted as proposed. 

§ 91.326(c) ....................... Instructs holders of LODAs issued under 

§ 91.319(h) on LODA validity and expiration at 

the time of publication of the final rule.

• Redesignates proposed § 91.326(c) as 

§ 91.326(d), with no substantive revisions. 

• Adds § 91.326(d), titled ‘‘Previously issued letters of deviation authority.’’ 

• New § 91.326(c), titled ‘‘Operations not requiring a letter of deviation authority,’’ provides introductory language on operations that may be 

conducted without a LODA (see previously denoted revisions to § 91.326(a)). 

§ 91.326(c)(2) ................... No proposed change ............................................ Adds new § 91.326(c)(2) to specify that a person 

may operate a limited category aircraft, experimental aircraft, or primary category aircraft to 

conduct flight training, checking, or testing 

without a LODA if no person provides and no 

person receives compensation for the flight 

training, checking, or testing, or for the use of 

the aircraft. 

Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport 

category: Operating limitations.

§ 91.327(a)(2) .................. Adds to the existing explicit permission for flight 

training that a person may conduct checking 

and testing.

Adopted as proposed. 

C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

The FAA analyzed the costs and 

benefits for the provisions related to 

PAO and the provisions related to 

training, testing, and checking in certain 

aircraft with special airworthiness 

certificates separately in the NPRM and 

presents the same analysis in this final 

rule. The changes from the NPRM to the 

final rule have minimal economic 

effects and do not change the results of 

the analysis. The final provisions 

related to PAO will impose no new 

costs, and the FAA determines the rule 

will reduce the costs for pilots 

conducting PAO to maintain their civil 

certificates and ratings.4 Based on 

calculations presented in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) section, the FAA 

estimates that the provisions related to 

training, testing, and checking will 

impose approximately $100,000 in total 

one-time costs (undiscounted) split 

roughly evenly between current LODA 

holders and the FAA over a period of 

two years. These costs stem from the 

requirement that current LODA holders 

who broadly offer certain aircraft with 

special airworthiness certificates for 

training reapply within two years of the 

effective date of this final rule.5

However, the FAA expects cost savings 

from the elimination of LODA 

requirements for pilots receiving 

training in their own aircraft, the 

streamlined regulatory framework, and 

the safety benefits from greater access to 

specialized training in aircraft with 

special airworthiness certificates to 

exceed the initial costs. Overall, the 

FAA concludes that this rule will 

enhance safety with minimal impact on 

cost. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes the scope of the 

FAA’s authority in more detail. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart iii, section 44701, 

General Requirements; section 44702, 

Issuance of Certificates; and section 

44703, Airman Certificates. Under these 

sections, the FAA prescribes regulations 

and minimum standards for practices, 

methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. The FAA is also 

authorized to issue certificates, 

including airman certificates and 

medical certificates, to qualified 

individuals. This final rule is within the 

scope of that authority. 

Furthermore, section 517 of Public 

Law 115–254, Public Aircraft Eligible 

for Logging Flight Times, directs the 

Administrator to revise 14 CFR 

61.51(j)(4) to include aircraft under 

direct operational control of forestry and 

fire protection agencies as public 

aircraft eligible for logging flight times. 

The FAA also codifies section 5604 of 

the 2023 NDAA, which directs that 

under certain conditions, flight training, 

testing, and checking in experimental 

aircraft does not require a LODA from 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80314 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

6 James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Public Law 117–263, 136 

Stat. 2395, Section 5604 (Dec. 23, 2022). 

7FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public Law 

118–63, 138 Stat. 1332, Section 826 (b) (May 16, 

2024). 

8FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Section 814. 

9FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Section 923. 

10Public Aircraft Logging of Flight Time, Training 

in Certain Aircraft Holding Special Airworthiness 

Certificates, and Flight Instructor Privileges, 88 FR 

41194 (Jun. 23, 2023). Corrected at 88 FR 44744 (Jul. 

14, 2023). 

11Public Aircraft Logging of Flight Time, Training 

in Certain Aircraft Holding Special Airworthiness 

Certificates, and Flight Instructor Privileges NPRM 

Extension of Comment Period, 88 FR 55959 (Aug. 

17, 2023). 

12 88 FR 41194 at 41196. 

13 Id. at 41196–41198. 

14 Id. at 41198, 41199. 15 Id. at 41199–41201. 16Emergency Cease and Desist Order Issued by 

the Federal Aviation Administration (July 28, 2020). 17Warbird Adventures, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation 

Admin., Petition for Review from an Emergency 

the FAA.6 This final rule implements 

those explicit Congressional directions. 

Finally, this final rule responds to 

several provisions of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024. As noted 

previously, this final rule implements 

the public aircraft logging provisions of 

section 826 regarding forestry and 

firefighting flight time logging, as well 

as the provision in that section that, 

within 180 days of the date of 

enactment of the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2024, the Administrator of the 

FAA shall make the regulatory changes 

necessary to implement section 826(a).7

This rule also responds to section 814 

of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 

regarding letter of deviation authority.8

Section 814 provides that a flight 

instructor, registered owner, lessor, or 

lessee of a covered aircraft shall not be 

required to obtain a letter of deviation 

authority from the Administrator to 

allow, conduct, or receive flight 

training, checking, and testing in such 

aircraft if the flight instructor is not 

providing both the training and the 

aircraft; no person advertises or broadly 

offers the aircraft as available for flight 

training, checking, or testing; and no 

person receives compensation for use of 

the aircraft for a specific flight during 

which flight training, checking, or 

testing was received, other than 

expenses for owning, operating, and 

maintaining the aircraft. For purposes of 

section 814, a covered aircraft means an 

experimental aircraft, a limited category 

aircraft, and a primary category aircraft. 

While not proposed in the NPRM, this 

final rule revises the definition of 

‘‘public aircraft’’ in 14 CFR 1.1 to align 

with the revised definition of ‘‘public 

aircraft’’ in 49 U.S.C. 40125(a)(2), as 

amended by section 923 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024.9 In section 

923, Congress amended the definition of 

‘‘public aircraft’’ in 49 U.S.C. 40125 as 

a matter of law. As the FAA has no 

discretion but to conform the definition 

of ‘‘public aircraft’’ in 14 CFR 1.1 to the 

amended definition in 49 U.S.C. 40125, 

the FAA finds prior notice and the 

opportunity for public comment on this 

definition revision unnecessary under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Therefore, the FAA 

finds good cause to forgo prior notice 

and the opportunity for public comment 

regarding this definition change. 

III. Background 

The NPRM published on June 23, 

2023,10 and the LODA advisory circular 

(AC) was added to the docket on June 

29, 2023. The public comment period 

for the NPRM and AC was initially 

scheduled to close on August 22, 2023. 

However, in response to a request from 

the Experimental Aircraft Association 

for additional time to comment, the 

FAA extended the comment period 

until September 21, 2023, to provide the 

public additional time to thoughtfully 

analyze and respond to the NPRM and 

AC.11 A brief overview of the NPRM 

follows. 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

1. Logging Flight Time in Public Aircraft 

Operations 

Prior to this rule, only pilots 

conducting PAO for official law 

enforcement activities could log flight 

time under § 61.51(j)(4). However, 

section 517 of the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2018, Public Law 115–254 

directed the FAA to expand PAO 

logging opportunities by permitting 

pilots to log flight time in aircraft under 

the direct operational control of forestry 

and fire protection agencies when such 

operations are conducted as PAO. 

Notwithstanding the limited scope of 

section 517, in the NPRM, the FAA 

proposed to amend § 61.51(j)(4) to allow 

logging of flight time for pilots engaged 

in any PAO in accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125(a)(2).12

Additionally, previous second-incommand (SIC) logging regulations did 

not address aircraft used in PAO that do 

not also hold airworthiness certificates 

issued by the FAA. The NPRM proposed 

to explicitly allow the logging of SIC 

time during PAO, with certain 

limitations, to encourage safety and 

promote consistency with the regulated 

community.13

2. Exceptions to Recent Flight 

Experience for Pilot-in-Command 

Section 61.57 contains the recent 

flight experience requirements to 

maintain privileges to act as PIC under 

certain scenarios, including 

requirements to complete takeoffs and 

landings to continue to act as PIC of a 

flight that is carrying passengers. The 

FAA had previously issued legal 

interpretations indicating certain 

operations related to obtaining recent 

flight experience with an instructor on 

board are already permissible under 

existing regulations, notwithstanding 

the prohibition on passenger-carrying 

flights. The FAA determined the plain 

text of its regulations did not support 

the conclusions in these interpretations. 

Therefore, the NPRM rescinded the 

conflicting legal interpretations and 

proposed to add § 61.57(e)(5) to codify 

an exception that, in certain 

circumstances, would enable a person 

receiving flight training to act as PIC 

even if that person does not meet recent 

flight experience requirements.14

3. Flight Instructor Privileges 

Sections 61.193 and 61.413 set forth 

the privileges of flight instructors and 

sport pilot instructors, respectively. 

During the course of this rulemaking, 

the FAA identified a need to clarify the 

types of operations that would be 

considered within the scope of a flight 

instructor’s privileges in accordance 

with part 61. Although the FAA has 

historically encouraged flight 

instructors to conduct certain types of 

training operations (e.g., transition 

training), §§ 61.193 and 61.413 could be 

read to restrict such training. Therefore, 

in the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

clarifying amendments to §§ 61.193 and 

61.413 to conform the regulations with 

current FAA policy and industry 

practice by explicitly permitting 

authorized flight instructors to conduct 

ground and flight training, and certain 

checking events, in addition to issuing 

endorsements.15

4. Flight Training Is Carrying a Person 

for Compensation or Hire; Exception To 

Operating Certain Aircraft for the 

Purposes of Flight Training, Flightcrew 

Member Checking, or Flightcrew 

Member Testing 

Previously, §§ 91.315, 91.319, and 

91.325 generally prohibited flight 

training, checking, and testing when 

compensation is provided. In 2020, the 

FAA issued Warbird Adventures, Inc. 

an emergency cease and desist order 

restricting the operation of aircraft that 

held special airworthiness certificates 

carrying people for compensation or 

hire.16 The operator brought a petition 

for review of the emergency order before 

the court.17 On April 2, 2021, the court 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80315 

Cease and Desist Order Issued by the Federal 

Aviation Administration on July 28, 2020, Doc. No. 

1854466 (D.C. Cir. 2020). 

18The court stated: ‘‘A flight student is a 

‘‘person.’’ Id. § 91.315; see also id. § 1.1. When a 

student is learning to fly in an airplane, the student 

is ‘‘carr[ied].’’ Id. § 91.315. And when the student 

is paying for the instruction, the student is being 

carried ‘‘for compensation.’’ Id.’’ Warbird 

Adventures, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 843 F. 

App’x 331 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

19 88 FR 41194 at 41201–41213. 

20Removal of the Date Restriction for Flight 

Training in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, 83 

FR 53590 (Oct. 24, 2018). 

21Removal of the Date Restriction for Flight 

Training in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft; 

Withdrawal, 88 FR 41045 (June 23, 2023). 

22 Docket No. FAA–2023–1351. Of the 22 

comments, two comments were duplicates and one 

commenter submitted four separate comments. 

Therefore, sixteen discrete commenters provided 

comments on the docket. 

23The FAA notes that both the Association of 

Professional Warbird Operators and the 

Commemorative Air Force commented to indicate 

support of EAA’s comments and recommended 

edits to the NPRM; additionally, EAA references 

Warbirds of America in their comment submission 

as a division of EAA representing pilots, owners, 

restorers, and enthusiasts of former military aircraft. 

For brevity, a reference to EAA should be 

understood to have the support of both of these 

organizations, as well as Warbirds of America as a 

division of EAA, rather than citing each of the 

organizations in every comment summary of this 

preamble. 

24The FAA notes that on February 26, 2024, the 

commenter announced the renaming of Helicopter 

Association International (HAI) to Vertical Aviation 

International (VAI). 

25 14 CFR 61.51(f). As explained in the NPRM, 

under current § 61.51(d), an assigned second pilot 

in a PAO does not meet the requirements to log SIC 

time (see 88 FR 41194 at 41197). 

26 88 FR 41194 at 41197. 

dismissed the petition for review of the 

cease and desist order.18 Following the 

court’s dismissal, several aviation 

industry groups sought clarification 

from the FAA on how the decision 

affected flight training in experimental 

aircraft since the prohibitory language of 

§ 91.315 for limited category aircraft is 

the same as that in § 91.319 for 

experimental aircraft (notably, the same 

prohibitory language exists in § 91.325 

for primary category aircraft). As a result 

of this court case, in the NPRM, the 

FAA proposed to clarify prohibitory 

language and to explicitly enable flight 

training, checking, and testing under 

certain conditions in aircraft holding 

special airworthiness certificates. 

In the wake of the court ruling, the 

James M. Inhofe National Defense 

Authorization Act for 2023 (2023 

NDAA) was adopted. The 2023 NDAA 

included a self-implementing provision 

that amended the operating rules to 

permit certain flight training, testing, 

and checking in experimental aircraft 

without a letter of deviation authority 

(LODA). Likewise, section 814 of the 

FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. 

L. 118–63) directed that, under certain 

conditions, flight training, testing, and 

checking in limited, experimental, and 

primary category aircraft do not require 

a LODA from the FAA. The NPRM 

proposed to modify §§ 91.315, 91.319, 

and 91.325 to clarify prohibited 

operations, as well as direct 

stakeholders to a newly proposed 

regulation, § 91.326, that provided 

instruction on conducting certain 

operations for compensation or hire. 

The FAA also proposed to implement 

related miscellaneous amendments 

pertaining to recent flight experience, 

flight instructor privileges, flight 

training in certain aircraft holding 

special airworthiness certificates, and 

the related prohibitions on conducting 

these activities for compensation or 

hire.19

5. Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft 

Lastly, on October 24, 2018, the FAA 

published an NPRM titled ‘‘Removal of 

the Date Restriction for Flight Training 

in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.’’ 20

For the reasons provided in the 

document withdrawing the ‘‘Removal of 

the Date Restriction for Flight Training 

in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft’’ 

NPRM,21 the FAA withdrew the NPRM 

and, instead, developed this rule to 

resolve the discrepancy more broadly 

for all experimental aircraft. 

B. Overview of Comments Received 

The FAA received 22 comments to the 

NPRM.22 Most of the comments were 

from advocacy or industry groups such 

as the Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA), the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), 

the Association of Professional Warbird 

Operators, Inc. (APWO), the 

Commemorative Air Force (CAF), the 

Experimental Aircraft Association 

(EAA),23 and the Helicopter Association 

International (HAI).24 The Champaign 

Aviation Museum (CAM) and 

individual members of the public also 

commented on the docket. The general 

disposition of the comments favored 

proceeding with the NPRM, albeit with 

suggested changes. 

IV. Discussion of Comments and the 

Final Rule 

A. Logging Flight Time in Public Aircraft 

Operations (§ 61.51) 

Section 61.51(j) states that, for time to 

be logged, it must be acquired in an 

aircraft that is identified as an aircraft 

under § 61.5(b) and is (1) an aircraft of 

U.S. registry with either a standard or 

special airworthiness certificate, (2) an 

aircraft of foreign registry with an 

airworthiness certificate that is 

approved by the aviation authority of a 

foreign country that is a Member State 

to the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO), (3) a 

military aircraft under the direct 

operational control of the U.S. Armed 

Forces, or (4) a public aircraft under the 

direct operational control of a Federal, 

State, county, or municipal law 

enforcement agency, if the flight time 

was acquired by the pilot while engaged 

on an official law enforcement flight for 

a Federal, State, county, or municipal 

law enforcement agency. The FAA 

proposed to amend the list of qualified 

operations in § 61.51(j)(4) to allow 

logging of flight time for pilots engaged 

in any PAO in accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125. 

Relatedly, the SIC logging 

requirements in § 61.51 permit a person 

to log time as SIC based on the number 

of pilots required by the type 

certification of the aircraft or the 

regulations under which the flight is 

conducted or through an approved SIC 

pilot professional development program 

(PDP).25 To adequately address aircraft 

used in PAO that do not necessarily 

meet these parameters, the FAA also 

proposed to add § 61.51(f)(4) to clarify 

that a person designated as second-incommand (SIC) by a government entity 

may log SIC time during PAO if the 

aircraft used is a large aircraft as defined 

in § 1.1, a turbo-jet powered airplane, or 

if the aircraft holds or originally held a 

type certificate that requires a second 

pilot. 

As discussed in the NPRM,26 the FAA 

finds that airline transport pilot (ATP) 

hours are largely related to exposure 

and experience through time building, 

whereas flight time necessary to meet 

minimum aeronautical experience 

requirements for private pilot, 

commercial, and instrument rating is 

more directly related to building 

specific skillsets and foundational 

knowledge. Therefore, the FAA 

proposed to add § 61.51(f)(4)(i) to 

explicitly state that SIC time logged 

under paragraph (f)(4) may not be used 

to meet the aeronautical experience 

requirements for the private or 

commercial pilot certificates or an 

instrument rating. Additionally, because 

ICAO standards do not recognize the 

crediting of flight time when a pilot is 

not required by the aircraft certification 

or the operating rules under which the 

flight is being conducted, the NPRM 

proposed to add § 61.51(f)(4)(ii) to 

delineate that an applicant for an ATP 

certificate who logs SIC time under 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80316 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27See FAA Advisory Circular 91–91, Maintaining 

Public Aircraft. www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/ 

document.information/documentID/1030146. 28See FAA Advisory Circular 91–91, Maintaining 

Public Aircraft. www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/ 

document.information/documentID/1030146. 

§ 61.51(f)(4) would be issued an ATP 

certificate with a limitation. 

Specifically, the certificate’s limitation 

would read, ‘‘Holder does not meet the 

pilot-in-command aeronautical 

experience requirements of ICAO,’’ as 

prescribed under Article 39 of the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation if the applicant does not meet 

the ICAO requirements contained in 

Annex 1 ‘‘Personnel Licensing’’ to the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation. 

Finally, the FAA proposed to amend 

§§ 61.159(e) and 61.161(d) to reference 

§ 61.51(f)(4) to align the proposed 

revisions to § 61.51(f) with requirements 

applicable to pilots who apply for an 

ATP certificate with an ICAO limitation. 

This proposed revision to the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

§§ 61.159 and 61.161 would reference 

§ 61.51(f)(4) to allow a pilot to credit SIC 

time logged under PAO toward the total 

time for an ATP certificate. 

1. Summary of the Comments 

The FAA received six comments on 

§ 61.51 as proposed in the NPRM. Three 

of the six commenters, AOPA, HAI, and 

an individual, generally supported the 

proposed revisions to § 61.51 without 

suggested changes. ALPA supported the 

proposal with suggested changes. One 

individual commenter opposed the 

proposal, and one individual’s comment 

was out of the scope of this rulemaking. 

HAI noted that the proposed changes 

would permit industry to track pilot 

experience more accurately without any 

detriment to safety. ALPA supported 

FAA’s proposal to amend § 61.51(j) and 

stated that the amendment would not 

negatively impact safety or training. 

ALPA stated that the technical skill and 

proficiency required to operate aircraft 

in these types of operations require even 

higher training and certification 

standards than airborne law 

enforcement operations. However, 

ALPA expressed its concern that some 

agencies’ training and certification 

standards may not be as rigorous as 

those of others. In this regard, ALPA 

clarified that its support is contingent 

on the final rule stipulating that PAO 

operators have formalized and 

documented training and certification 

programs for pilots operating under 

PAO to log time toward certificates, 

ratings, and experience. 

In addition, ALPA stated that it 

conditionally supported the proposed 

requirements for logging SIC time under 

PAO, emphasizing that SIC time should 

only be logged in large or turbojet 

powered multi-engine airplanes that are 

flown under PAO that do not also hold 

airworthiness certificates issued by the 

FAA. ALPA agreed that the proposed 

SIC provision would improve safety in 

the national airspace system (NAS) and 

is consistent with several National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

recommendations. However, ALPA 

recommended that PAO operators 

establish formalized command and 

mentoring training requirements for 

their PICs for a second pilot to be able 

to log SIC time. ALPA noted that such 

a suggestion is consistent with the 

flightcrew and PIC requirements of 

§ 135.99(c)(4). ALPA also supported the 

FAA’s proposal to limit crediting of SIC 

time toward the ATP certificate only. 

One individual commenter opposed 

the proposed update to § 61.51(j)(4). The 

commenter stated that permitting all 

PAO pilots to log flight time under 

§ 61.51(j)(4) would include PAOs 

operating non-certificated aircraft, 

military surplus aircraft, Law 

Enforcement Support Office (LESO) 

aircraft, and Federal Excess Purchasing 

Program (FEPP) aircraft. The commenter 

explained that this inclusion would 

likely negatively impact safety, though 

they did not explain how, and 

recommended that public aircraft 

operators have formalized, documented 

training and certification programs for 

pilots operating under PAO to log time 

toward certificates, ratings, and 

experience. The commenter emphasized 

that the FAA must be able to certify the 

aircraft are maintained and flown to the 

current military or aircraft manufacturer 

standard for that aircraft. 

Additionally, an individual 

commenter stated that since the NPRM 

would allow SIC time for PAO aircraft, 

the FAA should also reexamine 

allowing Naval Flight Officers (NFO) 

and equivalent flying officers of other 

military services to log as SIC time. The 

commenter noted that NFOs occupied 

the right seat in aircraft equipped with 

full instrumentation and performed all 

pilot monitoring duties, navigated, 

assisted with checklists, and performed 

emergency procedures; however, since 

the NFOs were not rated pilots by 

military standards, none of the acquired 

flight hours can be credited to the 

aeronautical experience requirements. 

The commenter explained that the 

inability to log time accrued as an NFO 

makes it financially much more difficult 

for an NFO to transition to a career as 

an airline pilot. 

The FAA did not receive any further 

comments on (1) the ICAO limitation 

proposed in § 61.51(f)(4)(ii) or (2) the 

crediting of time logged under PAO 

toward the total time for an ATP 

certificate proposed in §§ 61.159(e) and 

61.161(d). 

2. FAA Response 

The FAA acknowledges ALPA’s and 

an individual commenter’s 

recommendations to require, first, 

formalized and documented training 

and certification programs for pilots 

operating under PAO to credit time 

toward certificates, ratings, and 

experience and, second, formalized 

command and mentoring training 

requirements for their PICs for a second 

pilot to be able to log SIC time, similar 

to § 135.99(c). However, the FAA 

declines to revise this final rule to 

include these recommendations because 

the FAA does not maintain regulatory 

authority over PAOs other than those 

requirements that apply to all aircraft 

operating in the NAS. Such authority is 

granted to a government entity by 

statute under 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 

section 40125. Therefore, PAOs 

represent a significant transfer of 

responsibility to the government entity, 

who may implement certain training 

programs tailored to their specific 

governmental function and mission. 

Because the respective governmental 

entity is best situated to ensure proper 

training and operation of their PAO, and 

the FAA lacks the expertise to approve 

the broad gamut of PAO training 

programs that are specific to respective 

governmental agencies, the FAA does 

not find that requiring a training or 

mentorship program as a prerequisite to 

logging of PAO flight time would 

enhance safety. Further, as explained in 

the NPRM, these operations are already 

occurring in the NAS. The FAA is 

simply revising the PAO logging 

requirements to allow PICs and SICs to 

log the flight time they have been 

accumulating, and continue to 

accumulate, toward meeting certain 

FAA recency and certification 

requirements. 

In response to concerns that PAO 

aircraft are not certificated in 

accordance with FAA certification 

standards, the FAA notes its statutory 

authority to regulate the operation and 

maintenance of civil aircraft used in air 

commerce and lack of statutory 

authority to regulate public aircraft, 

except as related to operations in the 

NAS.27 The ability to determine the 

airworthiness of ‘‘public aircraft’’ is 

transferred to the governmental entity 

during qualified PAOs.28 As stated in 

AC 91–91, the FAA recommends that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80317 

29Under 14 CFR 1.1, a ‘‘large aircraft’’ means 

aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum 

certificated takeoff weight. 

30 49 U.S.C. 40125(a)(2) as amended by section 

923 of Public Law 118–63. 

31The FAA rescinded Legal Interpretation to Kris 

Kortokrax (Aug. 22, 2006), Legal Interpretation to 

John Olshock (May 4, 2007), Legal Interpretation to 

Roger Schaffner (May 5, 2014), and Legal 

Interpretation to E.V. Fretwell (Sept. 18, 1995) on 

July 23, 2023, 30 days after publication of the 

NPRM, because they were not supported by FAA 

regulations. See 88 FR 41194 at 41199. 

public aircraft operators use one of the 

inspection or maintenance programs 

specified in § 91.409 to determine 

airworthiness, but the FAA cannot make 

this a requirement. This shift in 

responsibility for safety standards for 

inspections and maintenance from the 

FAA to the governmental entity 

conducting a PAO neither impacts an 

aircraft’s ability to operate in the NAS 

nor a PAO pilot’s ability to log flight 

time as mandated by Congress. Based on 

the reasons discussed previously, this 

final rule does not add the commenter’s 

recommendation. 

Finally, this final rule does not adopt 

the recommendation to allow NFOs and 

equivalent flying officers of military 

services to log SIC flight time because it 

is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

expand PAO logging opportunities by 

permitting pilots to log flight time while 

conducting a governmental function 

outlined in 49 U.S.C. 40125. This is 

dissimilar to the request to allow NFOs 

and equivalent military personnel to log 

SIC pilot time because NFOs do not 

undergo the training nor perform the 

functions of a Naval pilot. Rather, NFOs 

function as navigators, lookouts, and 

weapons officers. Although there may 

be some functions that overlap with 

those of a Naval pilot, they are not 

equivalent to the responsibilities and 

duties of a PIC or SIC and, therefore, 

will not be considered as such under 

civilian regulations. Since the 

commenter’s request is unrelated to the 

provisions in the NPRM, the FAA will 

not integrate the suggested change into 

this final rule. 

3. Revisions To Align With ICAO 

Requirements 

As previously stated, the NPRM 

proposed to add § 61.51(f)(4)(ii) to 

delineate that an applicant for an ATP 

certificate who logs SIC time under 

§ 61.51(f)(4) would be issued an ATP 

certificate with a limitation. Although 

the NPRM proposed to require this 

limitation for all flight time logged in 

accordance with § 61.51(f)(4), the final 

rule is changed to align precisely with 

ICAO requirements. Specifically, the 

final rule will not require the limitation 

to be added to a pilot’s ATP certificate 

when the SIC flight time was logged in 

an aircraft type certificated for two 

pilots. This change is in accordance 

with ICAO Annex 1 (Personnel 

Licensing), section 2.1.9.3, which states, 

‘‘[t]he holder of a pilot license, when 

acting as a co-pilot at a pilot station of 

an aircraft certificated to be operated 

with a co-pilot, shall be entitled to be 

credited in full with this flight time 

towards the total flight time required for 

a higher grade of pilot license.’’ Persons 

logging flight time in aircraft that are not 

type certificated for two pilots will 

continue to require the ICAO limitation 

to be added to their ATP certificate. As 

noted in the NPRM, an applicant would 

be entitled to an ATP certificate without 

the ICAO limitation specified under this 

provision when the applicant presents 

satisfactory evidence of having met the 

ICAO requirements (and otherwise 

meets the applicable aeronautical 

experience requirements). 

Additionally, during the pendency of 

this rulemaking, the FAA noted an 

inadvertent error in the proposed ICAO 

limitation of § 61.51(f)(4)(ii) by 

excluding a reference to § 61.161, which 

sets forth the aeronautical experience 

requirements for rotorcraft category, 

helicopter class rating on an ATP 

certificate. Specifically, § 61.51(f)(4) 

permits a person to log SIC time if the 

person is designated by a government 

entity as an SIC when operating in 

accordance with § 61.51(j)(4), provided 

the aircraft used is a large aircraft (in 

addition to other conditions set forth 

within the paragraph (f)). By definition, 

a large aircraft can include a 

helicopter,29 which would necessitate 

an ICAO limitation for the ATP 

certificate with rotorcraft category, 

helicopter class rating mirroring that of 

an airplane category ATP certificate. 

While the FAA proposed the ICAO 

limitation provision in the NPRM via 

§ 61.161(d), the aligning reference was 

inadvertently excluded from 

§ 61.51(d)(4)(ii). This final rule corrects 

the inadvertent omission. 

The FAA adopts §§ 61.51(f), 

61.159(e), and 61.161(d), as proposed, 

subject to the revisions described in this 

section. 

B. Revision of the Definition of ‘‘Public 

Aircraft’’ (§ 1.1) 

Section 923 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 

118–63) amended the definition of 

‘‘public aircraft’’ found in 49 U.S.C. 

40125(a)(2). Specifically, section 923 

amends 49 U.S.C. 40125(a)(2), which 

sets forth the definition of 

‘‘governmental function,’’ to include: 

‘‘biological or geological resource 

management (including data collection 

on civil aviation systems undergoing 

research, development, test, or 

evaluation at a test range (as such term 

is defined in 49 U.S.C. 44801)), 

infrastructure inspections, or any other 

activity undertaken by a governmental 

entity that the Administrator determines 

is inherently governmental.’’ 30

The regulations in 14 CFR 1.1 set 

forth the definitions for subchapters A 

through K of title 14, chapter I, 

including a definition for public aircraft. 

Within the definition for ‘‘public 

aircraft,’’ paragraph (1)(ii) sets forth the 

definition of ‘‘governmental function’’ 

for the sole purpose of determining 

public aircraft status, which aligns with 

the definition of ‘‘governmental 

function’’ as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 

40125(a)(2). Because this final rule 

permits the logging of flight time for 

pilots engaged in any PAO in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) 

and 40125 (i.e., the revised statute), 

which contains the statutorily revised 

definition, this final rule revises the 14 

CFR 1.1 definition of public aircraft to 

align with the statutory definition in 

revised 49 U.S.C. 40125(a)(2). 

C. Exceptions to Recent Flight 

Experience for Pilot in Command 

(§ 61.57(e)) 

Section 61.57 contains recent flight 

experience requirements to maintain 

privileges to act as PIC under certain 

scenarios, including requirements to 

complete takeoffs and landings to 

continue to act as PIC of a flight that is 

carrying passengers. The FAA proposed 

to add § 61.57(e)(5) to codify an 

exception that, in certain circumstances, 

would enable a person receiving flight 

training to act as PIC, even if that person 

does not meet the recent flight 

experience requirements for carrying 

passengers under § 61.57(a) or (b). This 

person would be required to meet all 

other requirements to act as PIC, except 

for the recent flight experience 

requirements of § 61.57(a) or (b), and 

only the authorized instructor and 

person receiving training could be on 

board the aircraft. The FAA proposed 

the change in response to a disparity 

created between several legal 

interpretations 31 that concluded, 

unsupported by the regulations, that a 

flight instructor and a person receiving 

flight training are not considered 

passengers to one another. This final 

rule adds the definition of ‘‘passenger’’ 

and addresses how those legal 

interpretations relate to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80318 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

32For example, transition training to a new make 

and model for which a pilot is already rated but has 

never flown or lacks familiarity, and conventional 

instrumentation to technically advanced aircraft 

training. See 88 FR 41200 for additional discussion 

on additional recommended elective and training 

activities in practice that this final rule will now 

explicitly facilitate. 

33For example, instrument proficiency checks 

(IPC), night vision goggle proficiency checks (NVG), 

sport pilot proficiency checks, and part 141 checks. 

34For additional discussion on how the FAA will 

ascertain whether an operation is considered flight 

training, see 88 FR 41194 at 41201. 

35See 88 FR 41194 at 41200. 

36The FAA notes that this is an erroneous 

conclusion, but further discusses these privileges in 

the immediately following section of this preamble. 

requirements of § 61.57, as explained in 

section VI.F of this preamble. 

HAI and ALPA both supported the 

proposed amendment to § 61.57(e). HAI 

described the FAA’s approach in 

§ 61.57(e) as common sense, resulting in 

reduced confusion, increased training 

opportunities, and elimination of 

administrative burden on pilots. ALPA 

supported the proposal, provided no 

passengers are carried on board and the 

purpose of the flight is to establish 

recency of experience. The FAA did not 

receive any opposing comments nor 

recommended changes. 

Therefore, the FAA adopts 

§ 61.57(e)(5) as proposed. The FAA 

notes that AOPA urged the FAA to 

reconsider its withdrawal of existing 

interpretations before the effective date 

of any final rule. As previously noted, 

these legal interpretations were, in fact, 

withdrawn prior to this final rule 

because they were unsupported by the 

regulations in place at that time. This 

final rule maintains the action taken in 

regard to the legal interpretations, but 

the adoption of new § 61.57(e)(5) will 

succinctly codify the circumstances in 

which a person receiving flight training 

may act as PIC, even if that person does 

not meet the recent flight experience 

requirements for carrying persons under 

§ 61.57(a) or (b), curing any uncertainty 

caused by the rescission of the legal 

interpretations during the pendency of 

this rulemaking. 

D. Flight Instructor Privileges (§§ 61.193 

and 61.413) 

Sections 61.193 and 61.413 set forth 

the privileges of flight instructors and 

sport pilot instructors, respectively. 

Under §§ 61.193(a)(1) through (9) and 

61.413(a)(1) through (9), an authorized 

flight instructor may train and provide 

endorsements required for certificates, 

ratings, operating privileges, recency of 

experience requirements, and tests. The 

areas do not currently address specific 

elective and specialized training 

activities that the FAA encourages but 

which are not required to meet FAA 

regulations.32 To conform those 

regulations with FAA policy and 

industry practice, the FAA proposed 

three amendments to §§ 61.193 and 

61.413. First, the FAA proposed to 

modify the introductory text of 

§§ 61.193(a) and 61.413(a) to provide 

that authorized flight instructors may 

conduct ground and flight training, and 

certain checking events,33 in addition to 

issuing endorsements. Second, the FAA 

proposed to add maintaining or 

improving skills for certificated pilots to 

the list of flight instructor privileges 

found in §§ 61.193(a)(7) and 61.413(a)(6) 

to succinctly provide that flight 

instructors are authorized to conduct 

certain specialized and elective training 

intended to advance a pilot’s preexisting 

flying knowledge or skills but that may 

not require specific endorsements (i.e., 

not the initial development or building 

blocks of pilot knowledge). Finally, the 

FAA proposed to add §§ 61.193(c) and 

61.413(c) to limit the privileges afforded 

to authorized flight instructors under 

these provisions from permitting 

operations that would require an air 

carrier or operating certificate or 

specific authorization from the 

Administrator (e.g., solely providing 

transportation, conducting commercial 

air tours under the guise of flight 

training, or offering introductory or 

orientation flights to non-pilots who 

have no intention of or interest in 

continuing training toward a certificate 

or rating).34 Aside from permitting an 

authorized flight instructor to conduct 

certain checking events and training 

related to maintaining or improving 

skills for certificated pilots, the FAA did 

not propose to revise any other 

requirements within §§ 61.193 and 

61.413. 

1. Summary of the Comments 

Two industry groups responded to the 

proposed revisions to flight instructor 

privileges. ALPA fully supported the 

proposal, citing that the changes 

encourage pilots to seek continuing 

instruction and elective training. AOPA 

broadly supported the proposal, 

similarly stating that the efforts would 

promote aviation safety by encouraging 

pilots to obtain elective flight training 

and incentivize flight instructors to 

provide such, but suggested certain 

revisions to the proposal. Specifically, 

AOPA, first, sought clarification on 

whether certain flight activities would 

be included in the proposed expansion 

of privileges and, second, urged the 

FAA to expand certain types of training 

beyond only pilot training aimed at 

maintaining and improving skills for 

certificated pilots. 

First, AOPA recommended that the 

FAA specifically allow a flight 

instructor to train and provide 

endorsements as may be required by an 

insurer or an entity providing aircraft, 

such as a flying club or a Fixed Base 

Operator (FBO) authorized by an airport 

to provide services for general aviation. 

While AOPA ceded that these privileges 

may already be included in the 

proposed addition to §§ 61.193(a)(7) and 

61.413(a)(6), AOPA requested that the 

FAA specifically clarify whether these 

activities are included within the 

privileges afforded to flight instructors 

to avoid confusion. 

Additionally, AOPA agreed that 

elective flight training is highly 

beneficial to pilots with existing skills 

but emphasized that such training can 

be beneficial to any individual 

regardless of experience level and 

would not have a negative impact on 

safety. Specifically, AOPA cited the 

FAA’s position in the preamble of the 

NPRM that the proposed modifications 

to §§ 61.193(a)(7) and 61.413(a)(6) are 

only available to ‘‘train[ ] pilots to 

maintain or advance preexisting skills, 

not the initial inception or development 

of pilot knowledge,’’ stating that the 

FAA specifically notes that ‘‘[t]he 

proposed training does not contemplate 

learning basic flying skills, as in the 

case of a student pilot.’’ 35 AOPA 

asserted that a private pilot who has no 

intention of performing aerobatics could 

still learn potentially lifesaving 

information concerning aerodynamics 

and upset recovery by receiving training 

in aerobatics and that, similarly, a 

student pilot living in a mountainous 

area must receive training in mountain 

flying in the interests of safety. AOPA 

concluded that these operations would 

be prohibited by the proposed rule.36 To 

this point, AOPA opined that the 

proposed rule would undermine the 

ability to inspire a new generation of 

pilots with introductory flights that go 

beyond basic flying skills, which would 

be stifled by experience level 

parameters, providing an example that 

individuals interested in receiving flight 

instruction, but who do not yet have a 

certificate, discover their interest in 

aviation after a training flight where an 

instructor could demonstrate more 

energetic maneuvers before inviting the 

student to take the controls. AOPA 

noted that the proposed rule does not 

adequately address legitimate safety 

rationale for the limitations and, rather, 

appears to only be related to the FAA’s 

concern that an operator who should 

otherwise hold a commercial air tour 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80319 

37 ‘‘Pilot checkout’’ is a general term used by the 

aviation industry to describe an event enabling a 

pilot to demonstrate competency in a specific 

aircraft before being allowed to fly an aircraft 

provided by another entity. For example, ‘‘pilot 

checkout’’ includes insurance checkouts (also 

called rental checkouts), which occur when 

aviation insurance companies and persons offering 

their aircraft for rent require a pilot to fly with an 

instructor prior to renting an aircraft for the first 

time, regardless of whether the pilot is technically 

qualified to operate the aircraft. This checkout 

affords the insurance company and owner of the 

aircraft an opportunity to have a pilot’s skills 

evaluated as an additional layer of protection from 

aircraft damage. 

38See Legal Interpretation to Charles Walters 

(May 7, 2018), addressing the distinction between 

a checkout and training. 

39See Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA–H–8083– 

3C), Chapter 1, p 1–7, Paragraph 1: Introduction, for 

discussion on the building block method of 

instruction. 

40For example, pilot risks associated with flight 

instruction may include instructor, trainee, and 

aeromedical risks. Although a trainee will generally 

be less proficient than the instructor and may react 

unexpectedly, instructors may have qualification, 

currency, and proficiency issues. Additionally, the 

state of both the instructor and trainee’s medical 

health, inadequate rest prior to flight, or illness are 

sources of potential risk. Aircraft risks increase if 

the instructor is not aware of inoperative systems 

and equipment or overdue aircraft inspections. 

Environmental risks may include risks generated by 

the weather, terrain, and night operation hazards, 

and also include airports, airspaces, and other 

environmental factors. See Instructor’s Handbook 

(FAA–H–8083–9) Chapter 10, p 10–6 & 10–7: 

Common Flight Instruction Risks. 

41Aviation Instructor’s Handbook (FAA–H–8083– 

9) Chapter 10, p 10–2: Teaching Practical Risk 

Management during Flight Instruction. 

authorization could try to disguise itself 

as a flight training provider. 

2. FAA Response 

In response to AOPA’s request to 

clarify whether flight instructors are 

authorized to train and provide 

endorsements that may be required by 

an insurer or an entity providing an 

aircraft, the FAA notes that such 

training and endorsements are not 

necessarily precluded under the 

proposed amendments to §§ 61.193(a)(7) 

and 61.413(a)(6). Specifically, the 

proposed additions are general in 

nature, applying to any training to 

maintain or improve the skills of a 

certificated pilot, including specialized 

flight training that does not require an 

endorsement (e.g., transition training to 

ensure that certificated pilots are 

proficient and safe). Notably, the FAA 

does not have a regulatory requirement 

for a flight instructor to conduct a pilot 

checkout for insurance purposes, nor do 

the proposed amendments to the rule 

directly address insurance or other pilot 

checkouts required by industry.37

Rather, the amended rule could 

consider a pilot checkout to be flight 

training if flight training is given during 

the checkout. Conversely, if no flight 

training is provided during the 

checkout, then the flight would not be 

considered instruction.38 Thus, the 

NPRM proposed (as adopted by this 

final rule) to permit flight instructors to 

provide elective training to maintain or 

improve the skills of certificated pilots 

and train and issue endorsements under 

part 61 that an insurer or entity 

providing an aircraft may require, 

provided the activity is not merely a 

pilot checkout that does not include 

training. If training to maintain or 

improve skills of a certificated pilot 

were to occur during an insurance 

checkout, the FAA would consider that 

training to be within the scope of the 

proposed rule. Notably, insurance is 

generally not regulated by the FAA, and, 

therefore, an explicit authorization is 

not appropriate to add into this final 

rule. 

Furthermore, the FAA finds elective 

training such as aerobatic and mountain 

flying training beneficial for certificated 

pilots with existing skills; however, the 

FAA does not believe that such training 

would be beneficial to all individuals, 

regardless of experience level (i.e., 

persons who hold no pilot certificate). 

As discussed in the NPRM, the training 

contemplated under proposed 

§§ 61.193(a)(7) and 61.413(a)(6) is 

purposefully broad and may include 

transition training, aerobatic training, 

formation training, and mountain flying, 

none of which require an endorsement. 

Already-certificated pilots, in particular, 

may find training of this nature to be 

highly beneficial. 

As stated in the NPRM, the proposed 

training did not contemplate learning 

basic flying skills, as in the case of a 

student pilot (in other words, the only 

population of pilots that may utilize 

§§ 61.193(a)(7) and 61.413(a)(6) are 

already-certificated pilots via the 

conditional language ‘‘of a certificated 

pilot’’). The FAA has long recognized 

that the building block approach to 

flight training is the safest and most 

effective method to develop a learner’s 

knowledge and skills.39 The traditional 

framework for a pilot follows an 

incremental path to build piloting skills 

through an iterative series of training 

activities with a flight instructor, 

accumulation of other flight experience, 

and successful completion of a practical 

test with an evaluator. The FAA finds 

that individuals with little to no pilot 

knowledge, skills, or experience should 

become certificated pilots proficient in 

basic pilot skills before pursuing 

elective or specialized training activities 

because these activities require the 

trainee to at least possess the knowledge 

to safely operate the aircraft prior to 

engaging in more advanced skills. 

Specifically, persons will be required to 

possess at least a fundamental pilot 

certificate (e.g., recreational pilot 

certificate or sport-pilot certificate) to be 

eligible to receive this type of training, 

as these persons have demonstrated a 

level of proficiency to the FAA through 

the testing process. Individuals who are 

not pilots may not have a full awareness 

of the risks involved. For example, 

aerobatic skills training includes 

maneuvers that require application of 

advanced aerodynamic concepts, as 

well as the ability to manage aircraft 

speed, orientation, energy, and altitude 

to be performed safely. Persons who do 

not hold a pilot certificate would likely 

not yet have the knowledge or skills 

necessary to perform these types of 

maneuvers and, further, have not yet 

demonstrated to the FAA through the 

certification process that they possess 

the minimum knowledge and skills to 

safely operate the aircraft in the NAS, 

even in non-aerobatic flight. Common 

flight instruction risks include pilot 

risks, aircraft risks, and environmental 

risks.40 Consequently, demonstrating 

complicated maneuvers prior to 

transferring the controls to a trainee not 

holding a pilot certificate increases 

safety risks and potentially undermines 

mentoring of risk management concepts. 

Risk management should be mentored 

and taught at the very start of flight 

training and should be integrated into 

any flight training.41 Since using the 

building block method of instruction 

based on prior lessons learned is the 

safest and most effective method to 

elevate a learner’s knowledge and skills, 

the FAA does not consider 

demonstrating or teaching more 

advanced skills (e.g., aerobatic 

maneuvers) an appropriate building 

block of instruction for initial flight 

training for non-certificated pilots. 

For these reasons, the FAA declines to 

expand the privileges of flight 

instructors to include elective or 

specialized training to non-certificated 

pilots and finds this limitation would 

not undermine the ability to inspire a 

new generation of pilots, as flight 

training pathways for new pilots already 

exist in the airman certification 

framework. In response to AOPA’s 

comment that the limitations on the 

proposed expansion of flight instructor 

privileges appear to only be related to 

the FAA’s concerns that an operator 

who should otherwise hold a 

commercial air tour authorization could 

disguise itself as a flight training 

provider, the FAA reiterates that, as 

discussed, the rationale for these 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80320 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

42 88 FR 41194 at 41201. 

43Warbird Adventures, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation 

Admin., Petition for Review from an Emergency 

Cease and Desist Order Issued by the Federal 

Aviation Administration on July 28, 2020, Doc. No. 

1854466 (D.C. Cir. 2020). 

44Notification of Policy for Flight Training in 

Certain Aircraft, 86 FR 36493 (Jul. 12, 2021). 

45With respect to an aircraft, the word ‘‘operate’’ 

is broadly defined in § 1.1 as ‘‘use, cause to use or 

authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as 

provided in § 91.13 of this chapter) of air 

navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or 

without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, 

or otherwise).’’ As explained in the NPRM, an 

aircraft may be ‘‘operated’’ by more than one person 

for purposes of part 91 regulations. See 88 FR 41194 

at 41202. 

46Pursuant to § 1.1, ‘‘person’’ is defined as an 

individual, firm, partnership, corporation, 

company, association, joint-stock association, or 

governmental entity. It includes a trustee, receiver, 

assignee, or similar representative of any of them. 

47See Legal Interpretation to Joseph Kirwan (May 

27, 2005). Compensation ‘‘does not require a profit, 

a profit motive, or the actual payment of funds.’’ 

Rather, compensation is the receipt of anything of 

value. See also Legal Interpretation to John W. 

Harrington (Oct. 23, 1997); Blakey v. Murray, NTSB 

Order No. EA–5061 (Oct. 28, 2003). The FAA has 

previously found that reimbursement of expenses 

(fuel, oil, transportation, lodging, meals, etc.), 

accumulation of flight time, and goodwill in the 

form of expected future economic benefit could be 

considered compensation. 

48The FAA notes that the NPRM proposed a 

miscellaneous, nonsubstantive amendment to 

§ 91.319(d)(3) to use ‘‘air traffic control’’ in place of 

‘‘control tower.’’ The FAA did not receive comment 

on this proposal and adopts the revision as 

proposed. 

49See Primary Category final rule, 57 FR 41360 

(Sep. 9, 1992). 

50Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and 

Pilot School Certification Rules final rule, 62 FR 

16220, 16242 (Apr. 4, 1997). 

51AOPA specifically quoted, ‘‘The FAA has 

found that, in conducting flight training, the PIC is 

not carrying passengers or property for 

compensation or hire, nor is acting as PIC of an 

aircraft for compensation or hire,’’ from the 

BasicMed final rule. See Alternative Pilot Physical 

Examination and Education Requirements final 

rule, 82 FR 3149 at 3155 (Jan. 11, 2017). 

limitations is based on public and 

trainee safety needs, lack of potential 

risk awareness, and the additional risks 

discussed herein and in the NPRM. In 

the absence of any safety data or 

documented safety cases to support a 

claim that an individual at any 

experience level benefits from such 

advanced training activities, the FAA 

declines to expand the proposed 

revisions to §§ 61.193(a)(7) and 

61.413(a)(6). 

After considering comments, the FAA 

adopts the revisions to §§ 61.193 and 

61.413 as proposed in the NPRM to 

clarify the privileges an authorized 

flight instructor may exercise. 

E. Flight Training Is Carrying a Person 

for Compensation or Hire 

The FAA’s proposal reinforced its 

longstanding position that, although 

excepted from the part 119 requirement 

to obtain an air carrier or commercial 

operator certificate, compensated flight 

training in limited, experimental, and 

primary category aircraft is an operation 

that involves the carriage of a person for 

compensation or hire. Specifically, as 

discussed at length in the NPRM,42 the 

restrictions on operating aircraft that 

hold special airworthiness certificates 

carrying people for compensation or 

hire recently came under review as a 

result of an emergency cease and desist 

order issued to Warbird Adventures, 

Inc. by the FAA in 2020.43 Following 

the court’s dismissal of the petition for 

review of the cease and desist order, the 

FAA, first, published a Notification of 

Policy in the Federal Register laying out 

its position that when compensation is 

provided for flight training, it is 

contrary to the prohibition on operating 

an aircraft carrying a person for 

compensation or hire even when no 

compensation is provided for the use of 

the aircraft 44 and, second, announced it 

would rescind conflicting agency 

guidance. Additionally, the 

announcement memorialized the 

intention to consider a future 

rulemaking to remove obstacles to flight 

training for owners of aircraft with 

certain special airworthiness certificates 

while maintaining prohibitions on 

broadly offering these aircraft for flight 

training to the public (i.e., this 

rulemaking). 

In proposing this rulemaking, the 

FAA noted conflicts between the 

general prohibitions in §§ 91.315, 

91.319, and 91.325 (applicable to 

limited category, experimental, and 

primary category aircraft, respectively) 

and operating limitations placed on 

these aircraft during the aircraft 

certification process, legal 

interpretations, and guidance related to 

the carriage of persons or property 

aboard these aircraft during operations 

involving compensation or hire. 

Specifically, the FAA detailed that 

terms within these regulations are either 

broadly defined (e.g., operate,45

person 46) or have been broadly 

interpreted over time (e.g., 

compensation 47), resulting in obstacles 

to certain flight training that the FAA 

did not intend. 

Therefore, the proposed rule sought to 

narrow and more clearly define the 

types of operations that are precluded in 

aircraft holding certain special 

airworthiness certificates by refining the 

regulatory language in §§ 91.315, 

91.319,48 and 91.325 to clearly define 

operations that would generally require 

an air carrier or commercial operator 

certificate (or an exception therefrom), 

while explicitly enabling flight training, 

checking, and testing. Specifically, 

except as provided in proposed § 91.326 

(which is further discussed in this 

preamble), the proposed amendments 

would prohibit conducting operations 

that: (1) require an air carrier or 

commercial operator certificate issued 

under part 119; (2) are listed in 

§ 119.1(e); (3) require management 

specifications for a fractional ownership 

program issued in accordance with 

subpart K of part 91; or (4) are 

conducted under part 129, 133, or 137. 

Similarly, the NPRM proposed to amend 

§ 91.327 to be inclusive of checking and 

testing in aircraft having a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category, where it previously only 

enabled flight training, through 

paragraph (a)(2). 

1. Summary of the Comments 

AOPA supported the FAA’s efforts to 

clarify the operating limitations of 

limited, experimental, and primary 

category aircraft but argued that the 

premise for these changes is based on 

the flawed conclusion that flight 

instruction categorically equates to the 

carriage of persons for compensation or 

hire. AOPA explained that the FAA has 

repeatedly held that compensated flight 

instruction does not equal to the 

carriage of persons for compensation or 

hire, providing several examples. First, 

AOPA detailed a 1992 final rule for the 

establishment of primary category 

aircraft as specifically permitting the 

use of primary category aircraft for flight 

instruction while simultaneously 

prohibiting the carriage of passengers or 

property for compensation or hire.49

Second, AOPA stated that a 1997 final 

rule explained why a flight instructor 

acting as PIC need only hold a thirdclass medical certificate to conduct 

flight instruction by stating ‘‘a 

certificated flight instructor who is 

acting as pilot in command or as a 

required flight crewmember and 

receiving compensation for his or her 

flight instruction is not carrying 

passengers or property for compensation 

or hire, nor is he or she, for 

compensation or hire, acting as pilot in 

command of an aircraft.’’ 50 Third, 

AOPA cited Congress as recognizing 

that flight training is not considered to 

be carrying a passenger for 

compensation or hire when it enacted 

section 2307 of the FAA Extension, 

Safety, and Security Act of 2016, a 

position the FAA agreed with when it 

promulgated the ‘‘BasicMed’’ 

regulations implementing this law.51

Therefore, AOPA recommended that 

the FAA adopt regulations specifically 

clarifying that flight instruction does not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80321 

52Section 243 of H.R.3935, Securing Growth and 

Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, 

proposed that the FAA adopt the position that an 

authorized flight instructor providing student 

instruction, flight instruction, or flight training shall 

not be deemed to be operating an aircraft carrying 

persons or property for compensation or hire. 

However, this section was not enacted as part of the 

FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public Law 118– 

63. 

53The history of § 91.315 confirms that the 

regulation prohibits the carriage of persons in 

exchange for compensation for any purpose, 

including flight training. As originally enacted, that 

regulation contained language that only authorized 

flights ‘‘in which neither passengers nor cargo are 

carried for compensation or hire.’’ However, 

§ 91.315 has been amended several times to expand 

the regulation to prohibit the carriage of ‘‘persons’’ 

and not just ‘‘passengers.’’ Notably, the FAA does 

not interpret its regulations prohibiting the carriage 

of passengers to consider flight students as 

passengers. However, the FAA interprets its 

regulations prohibiting the carriage of persons to 

include any person, including flight students. The 

decision to expand § 91.315’s predecessor 

regulation to prohibit the carriage of persons, not 

just passengers, for compensation or hire therefore 

supports the distinction between carriage of persons 

and carriage of passengers. See Warbird 

Adventures, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 2020 WL 

7260623 (C.A.D.C.) (Appellate Brief). 

54Public Law 118–63, the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2024, did not contain the language 

referenced in AOPA’s comment. 

55Warbird Adventures, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation 

Admin., 843 F. App’x 331 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

56Section 91.409(b) does not apply to (1) an 

aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current 

experimental certificate, or a light-sport or 

provisional airworthiness certificate; (2) an aircraft 

inspected in accordance with an approved aircraft 

inspection program under part 125 or 135 and so 

identified by the registration number in the 

operations specifications of the certificate holder 

having the approved inspection program; (3) an 

aircraft subject to the requirements of § 91.409(d) 

and (e); or (4) turbine-powered rotorcraft when the 

operator elects to inspect that rotorcraft in 

accordance with § 91.409(e). 

57See Part 91—General Operating and Flight 

Rules, 35 FR 4116 (March 5, 1970) which clarified 

that the caveat ‘‘in an aircraft which that person 

provides’’ was added to clarify the 100-hour 

inspection requirement for the flight instruction for 

hire was intended for those instances in which the 

person providing flight instruction for hire also 

provides the aircraft in which the instruction is 

given. The preamble indicates this clarification was 

needed because the regulation had been 

misunderstood by many people to mean that they 

could not receive flight instruction in an aircraft 

owned or leased by them if the flight instructor 

received compensation for their services unless the 

aircraft had met the 100-hour inspection 

requirement. 

58E.g., Legal Interpretation to Greenwood-Fly by 

Knight (Oct. 1, 2014) (reiterated in Greenwood-Fly 

by Knight, Oct. 9, 2015). 

59The FAA notes that the definitions set forth in 

§ 61.1 are for the purpose of part 61 (see § 61.1(b)). 

However, for purposes of airman certification and 

training, it is common practice to apply certain part 

61 definitions to related certification and training 

parts and sections within Title 14 (e.g., part 61 

definitional application of ‘‘authorized instructor’’ 

to part 141). The FAA contemplated a global 

definition for ‘‘passenger,’’ but does not find it 

appropriate at this time to memorialize the 

definition of ‘‘passenger’’ in part 1 to apply to all 

of Title 14 due to the possible unintended and 

unstudied repercussions in other parts that would 

be out of scope for this rulemaking. In this case, it 

will be FAA policy to apply the part 61 definition 

of ‘‘passenger’’ to § 91.111(c) because the formation 

training is taking place during a part 61 flight 

Continued 

equate to the carriage of persons or 

property for compensation or hire. In 

addition, AOPA referenced section 243 

of proposed H.R. 3935.52 Likewise, 

AOPA argued that since the FAA views 

all compensated flight instruction as 

carrying a person for compensation or 

hire, every aircraft used for 

compensated flight instruction must 

comply with § 91.409(b), which 

contains aircraft inspection 

requirements, regardless of whether the 

aircraft is provided by the flight 

instructor. AOPA further explained that, 

based on the FAA’s new proposed 

interpretation in the NPRM, the second 

condition in § 91.409(b), under which a 

100-hour inspection is required, is 

meaningless. Finally, AOPA noted that 

this interpretation would effectively 

prohibit a flight instructor from 

providing instruction for formation 

flying since § 91.111(c) prohibits any 

person from operating an aircraft 

carrying passengers for hire in formation 

flight. 

2. FAA Response 

The FAA declines to align with 

AOPA’s position that flight instruction 

does not equate to the carriage of 

persons or property for compensation or 

hire. The FAA maintains the position 

that flight training for compensation 

constitutes carriage of a person for 

compensation or hire but adopts this 

final rule to specifically define types of 

operations under which persons or 

property could be carried for 

compensation or hire (including certain 

flight training). The FAA notes that in 

its comment, AOPA used the terms 

‘‘carriage of persons’’ and ‘‘carriage of 

passengers’’ interchangeably. In recent 

related litigation, the FAA explained its 

position that ‘‘persons’’ is a broader 

term than ‘‘passengers’’ and specified 

that the FAA has consistently drawn a 

distinction between regulations that 

refer to the carriage of passengers and 

the carriage of persons.53 Additionally, 

in the litigation, the FAA stated, ‘‘[it] 

has consistently drawn a distinction 

between regulations that refer to the 

carriage of passengers, which the FAA 

does not interpret to include flight 

students, and those that prohibit the 

carriage of persons, which the FAA 

interprets to include any person, 

including flight students.’’ 

Regarding AOPA’s reference to 

section 243 of H.R. 3935 for guidance, 

the FAA notes that the cited proposed 

legislative language was not enacted.54

Without a congressional mandate, the 

FAA does not intend to adopt any 

regulation specifying flight instruction 

does not equate to the carriage of 

persons or property for compensation or 

hire. The FAA notes that AOPA’s 

recommendation is incongruent with a 

recent court ruling, wherein the court 

determined that: ‘‘A flight student is a 

‘person.’ Id. § 91.315; see also id. § 1.1. 

When a student is learning to fly in an 

airplane, the student is ‘carried.’ Id. 

§ 91.315. And when the student is 

paying for the instruction, the student is 

being carried ‘for compensation.’ ’’ 55

The FAA also disagrees with AOPA’s 

interpretation of § 91.409(b). Section 

91.409 sets forth certain inspection 

requirements. Paragraph (b) requires, in 

pertinent part, that, except as provided 

in § 91.409(c),56 no person may operate 

an aircraft carrying any person (other 

than a crewmember) for hire, and no 

person may give flight instruction for 

hire in an aircraft which that person 

provides, unless within the preceding 

100 hours of time in service the aircraft 

has received an annual or 100-hour 

inspection and been approved for return 

to service in accordance with part 43 or 

has received an inspection for the 

issuance of an airworthiness certificate 

in accordance with part 21. The FAA’s 

position and § 91.409(b) are not 

contradictory. Rather, the regulation 

provides specificity to the inspection 

expectations when a person only 

provides flight instruction compared to 

when a person provides both flight 

instruction and the aircraft. Specifically, 

the regulation intends that, despite the 

requirement for a 100-hour inspection 

when any person is carried for hire, a 

100-hour inspection is only required for 

flight training when the person giving 

the instruction for hire also provides the 

aircraft.57 While the FAA cedes that the 

regulation could have been more 

strongly written, and may consider a 

revision in a separate rulemaking to 

except circumstances rather than 

affirmatively stating such, this position 

has been explicitly reiterated in Legal 

Interpretations.58

AOPA’s concern that a flight 

instructor would be prohibited from 

providing instruction for formation 

flying has been addressed by the 

addition of the definition of ‘‘passenger’’ 

in § 61.1 as part of this final rule, as 

discussed in more detail in the 

subsequent section of this preamble. 

While AOPA noted that § 91.111(c) 

generally prohibits any person from 

operating an aircraft carrying passengers 

for hire in formation flights, the FAA 

has excluded persons providing or 

receiving flight training from its 

definition of ‘‘passenger’’ in § 61.1.59


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80322 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

training event. As previously stated in this 

preamble, the training contemplated under 

§§ 61.193(a)(7) and 61.413(a)(6) may include 

formation training. 

60Legal Interpretation to Kris Kortokrax (Aug. 22, 

2006), concluding that a flight instructor who has 

not met the recent night takeoff and landing 

experience in § 61.57(b) should be able to 

accompany a pilot without being considered a 

passenger; Legal Interpretation to Roger Schaffner 

(May 5, 2014), concluding that a flight instructor 

with an expired medical certificate may instruct a 

person who is a private pilot with a current medical 

certificate and flight review, even if that person is 

not current to carry passengers per § 61.57(a) 

because the instructor is not considered a passenger 

when the instructor is present specifically to train 

the person receiving instruction. 

61AOPA noted the lack of upkeep of the FAA’s 

legal interpretation database, stating that these legal 

interpretations were withdrawn as of July 23, 2023, 

but at the time of their comment submission on 

September 18, 2023, still existed on the legal 

interpretation database. AOPA stated that, in 

general, the interpretation database is difficult to 

use and search terms do not generate accurate 

responses. AOPA strongly recommended that the 

FAA take steps to more effectively monitor and 

control its legal interpretation database so that it 

remains an accurate resource. The FAA 

continuously works to keep the legal interpretation 

database up to date and notes that members of the 

public can also refer to the Dynamic Regulatory 

System to review current FAA legal interpretations 

at drs.faa.gov. 

62Specifically, AOPA cited the Kortokrax, 

Olshock, and Schaffner legal interpretations, which 

were withdrawn on July 23, 2023. 88 FR 41194, 

41199. AOPA described a primary concern with the 

interim period between the withdrawal of the legal 

interpretations and final rule implementation. 

Specifically, AOPA posited that to withdraw these 

interpretations without first ensuring a clear 

framework is in place, whether it be regulatory or 

policy, poses a significant aviation safety concern 

because pilots and flight instructors who do not 

meet the recent flight experience requirements of 

§ 61.57(a) and (b) will struggle to find a safe 

solution. The FAA acknowledges AOPA’s concern, 

which is cured by virtue of this final rule. 

63 Flightcrew member is defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as 

a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned 

to duty in an aircraft during flight time. Minimum 

flightcrew requirements are established at the time 

of type certification in the Type Certificate Data 

Sheet, operational regulation (e.g., part 121 or 135), 

or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating 

authority of the country of registry. 

64 14 CFR 61.1(b). 

Therefore, formation flight training will 

not be prohibited in accordance with 

this final rule. 

For these reasons, this final rule does 

not make any revisions based on 

AOPA’s comments regarding the 

carriage of persons for compensation or 

hire as it relates to compensated flight 

training. 

F. New Definition of Passenger 

(§ 61.1(b)) and Related Changes 

(§ 61.57) 

Although the FAA has not previously 

defined ‘‘passenger’’ in regulation, the 

NPRM analyzed the FAA’s historical 

interpretation of the term. Previous FAA 

legal interpretations 60 have stated that a 

flight instructor and a person receiving 

flight training are not considered 

passengers to one another. However, the 

NPRM concluded that those FAA legal 

interpretations had no regulatory basis 

to assert such a position, and the FAA 

has since rescinded those 

interpretations. While the NPRM did 

not assert that a flight instructor and a 

person receiving flight training are not 

passengers to one another, it sought to 

clarify when certain operations 

involving such persons may be 

conducted. 

1. Summary of the Comments 

AOPA asserted that the FAA does not 

offer a reasoned explanation to depart 

from the established view that a flight 

instructor and a trainee are not 

passengers to one another. According to 

AOPA, the FAA indicated in the NPRM 

that decades of its own policy and 

interpretations are incorrect. AOPA 

argued that the FAA failed to consider 

the plain meaning of the term 

‘‘passenger,’’ which it defines from two 

legal dictionaries as ‘‘an occupant of a 

vehicle other than the person operating 

it or a member of the crew.’’ AOPA 

contended that because both instructor 

and trainee are operating the aircraft, 

each may be considered a crewmember 

and neither meets the plain meaning of 

the term ‘‘passenger.’’ Therefore, AOPA 

urged the FAA to retain the referenced 

legal interpretations,61 conform the 

regulatory framework to reflect current 

policy and industry practice, and adopt 

a single regulation clarifying that an 

authorized flight instructor providing 

instruction to a trainee is not considered 

a passenger to the trainee, and vice 

versa.62

2. FAA Response 

The FAA agrees with AOPA’s 

comment that the regulations could 

better delineate the relationship 

between students and instructors. As 

stated in the NPRM, longstanding FAA 

legal interpretations have clarified that 

students and instructors are not 

considered passengers to one another. 

While the FAA ceded there was no 

regulatory basis upon which to make 

this assertion, the FAA finds this 

rulemaking to be the optimal 

opportunity to explicitly define 

‘‘passenger’’ through a regulatory 

definition. As such, for the purposes of 

part 61, the FAA does not consider 

crewmembers, FAA personnel, 

manufacturer personnel required for 

type certification, or persons engaged in 

flight training, flightcrew member 

checking, or flightcrew member testing 

to be passengers. These groups are not 

considered passengers because they are 

onboard the aircraft for specific 

purposes, generally to fulfill regulatory 

obligations, and possess knowledge of 

the risks associated with those purposes 

(e.g., flight test engineers) or some sort 

of certification (e.g., an airman 

certificate). Conversely, persons on 

board an aircraft to receive a ride 

(whether transported from place to 

place or for other purposes like 

sightseeing, air tours, or persons carried 

to conduct aerial photography) would 

be considered passengers. 

Notably, the FAA considered 

implementing AOPA’s recommendation 

to adopt a single regulation explaining 

that an authorized flight instructor 

providing instruction and a trainee are 

not considered passengers to one 

another. However, the FAA found that 

a single regulation that narrowly defines 

the relationship between students and 

instructors would not address the 

carriage of other persons, such as 

crewmembers, FAA personnel, or 

manufacturer personnel required for 

type certification when the pilot is 

operating for compensation. Therefore, 

adopting AOPA’s recommendation 

would not provide a sufficiently broad 

regulatory solution to clarify the term 

‘‘passenger.’’ The term ‘‘passenger’’ is 

frequently used in varying contexts 

throughout part 61, and the FAA finds 

that one definition of the term 

applicable to all of part 61 provides the 

requisite clarity to prevent multiple 

interpretations of the term. 

Therefore, this final rule adopts a new 

definition in § 61.1(b) to define 

‘‘passenger’’ as any person on board an 

aircraft other than a crewmember, FAA 

personnel, manufacturer personnel 

required for type certification, or a 

person providing or receiving flight 

training, flightcrew member checking, 

or flightcrew member testing as 

authorized by part 61.63 This new 

definition applies to the term 

‘‘passenger’’ as it is used in part 61.64

To effectuate this change, the FAA 

evaluated all instances of the use of the 

term ‘‘passenger’’ in part 61 to ensure 

accuracy and consistency (i.e., to ensure 

that the new definition of passenger 

would not create an unintended 

consequence). While this evaluation 

identified other parts of the CFR that 

reference the definitions in § 61.1, only 

§ 61.57 requires a conforming 

amendment. Because the FAA is 

defining ‘‘passenger’’ to exclude a flight 

instructor and trainee (in other words, 

memorializing that a trainee will not be 

a passenger to the flight instructor and 

vice versa), the use of the word 

‘‘passenger’’ in current § 61.57(a)(1) and 

(b)(1) could be applied more broadly to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80323 

65See § 61.57(a)(1)(i) and (ii). 

66See § 61.57(b)(1)(i) and (ii) and (e). 

67See FAA Order 8000.95C, Designee 

Management Policy, Chapter 5, Table 3–9. 68See §§ 61.99(a)(1)(ii), 61.109(a)(4), and 

61.129(a)(3)(v) which require an applicant for a 

recreational, private, and commercial certificate, 

respectively, to obtain three hours of aeronautical 

experience with an authorized instructor in 

preparation for the practical test within the 

preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the 

test. 

69 In this context, ‘‘ASTM’’ refers to the American 

Society for Testing and Materials. 

70EAA also referenced a simultaneous FAA 

rulemaking, Modernization of Special 

Airworthiness Certification, 88 FR 47650 (Jul. 24, 

2023) (Docket No. FAA–2023–1377) and expressed 

support for a future amendment to § 91.319(e)(2) to 

Continued 

create a scenario where a flight 

instructor who does not have the 

required recent flight experience could 

carry a trainee who is not yet capable to 

act as PIC. Specifically, § 61.57(a)(1) sets 

forth that, except as provided in 

§ 61.57(e), no person may act as PIC of 

an aircraft carrying passengers or of an 

aircraft certificated for more than one 

pilot flight crewmember unless that 

person has made at least three takeoffs 

and three landings within the preceding 

90 days characterized by certain 

conditions.65 Because the new 

definition of ‘‘passenger’’ in § 61.1 

includes (in pertinent part to this issue) 

any person on board an aircraft other 

than a person receiving or providing 

flight training, checking, or testing, 

under current application of the new 

definition with no revision to 

§ 61.57(a)(1), a flight instructor could act 

as PIC of an aircraft without meeting the 

PIC recent flight experience 

requirements of § 61.57(a) because the 

trainee would not be a passenger. 

Similar recent flight experience is 

promulgated in § 61.57(b), requiring 

certain night takeoff and landing 

experience before a person may act as 

PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers 

during the period beginning 1 hour after 

sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, 

subject to certain conditions and 

exceptions,66 which would result in the 

same safety concern. Although this final 

rule is enabling a situation where a 

flight instructor may be on board an 

aircraft with another pilot, neither of 

whom has met the recent flight 

experience requirements, the risk is 

mitigated by the fact that both persons 

are otherwise qualified to operate the 

aircraft. If the same flight instructor 

were to act as PIC of an aircraft carrying 

a flight student who is not an otherwise 

qualified pilot, the risk is increased 

because, in the event of an emergency, 

only one person is capable of operating 

the aircraft, rather than two, and the 

sole person capable of operating does 

not have the benefit of recent flight 

experience (in other words, certain 

proficiencies may have degraded over 

time due to disuse). 

Additionally, this change necessitates 

an addition to the list of exceptions set 

forth in § 61.57(e) to include an 

exception for an examiner and an 

applicant during the conduct of a 

practical test to preserve the regulatory 

authority granted by § 61.47(c). Section 

61.47(c) enables a scenario in which a 

practical test could be conducted when 

neither the examiner nor the person 

receiving the practical test has met the 

recent flight experience requirements of 

§ 61.57(a) or (b) because it explicitly 

states that those persons are not subject 

to the requirements or limitations for 

the carriage of passengers that are 

specified in 14 CFR chapter I. Because 

§ 61.57(a) and (b), as currently written, 

apply to ‘‘passenger,’’ § 61.47(c) 

functions to except the examiner and 

the person receiving the practical test 

from the requirements set forth in 

§ 61.57(a) and (b). Although uncommon, 

there could be a scenario where neither 

an examiner nor the person receiving 

the practical test has met the recent 

flight experience requirements of 

§ 61.57(a) or (b); however, the test can 

still be safely conducted because there 

are other proficiency requirements for 

examiners and applicants. For example, 

examiners must meet PIC experience 

requirements every 12 months to 

maintain eligibility to conduct practical 

tests.67 Likewise, applicants for a 

practical test must meet certain 

prerequisite aeronautical experience 

requirements.68 With this final rule, the 

FAA maintains the position that a 

designee and an applicant for a practical 

test can conduct the test without 

meeting the requirements of § 61.57(a) 

and (b). To facilitate this position in 

light of the change from ‘‘passengers’’ to 

‘‘persons’’ in § 61.57(a) and (b), the 

exception adopted in this final rule as 

new § 61.57(e)(6) specifies that 

paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to 

the examiner or the applicant during the 

conduct of a practical test required by 

part 61. The FAA emphasizes that this 

new provision simply maintains the 

status quo for examiners and applicants 

during practical tests. 

Therefore, this final rule modifies 

§ 61.57(a)(1) and (b)(1) to change the 

word ‘‘passengers’’ to ‘‘persons’’ to limit 

those who may be on board to the 

specific exceptions identified in 

§ 61.57(e), which includes a new 

exception for instructors and trainees in 

certain circumstances. 

G. Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft 

(§ 91.319(e)) 

Section 91.319(e) contains specific 

limitations on the use of certain 

experimental aircraft certificated under 

§ 21.191(i)(1). The NPRM proposed to 

modify § 91.319(e)(2) to remove the date 

restriction on flight training in 

experimental light-sport aircraft (ELSA) 

and direct stakeholders to the flight 

training, checking, and testing in 

proposed § 91.326, thus enabling flight 

training in certain ELSA. In addition, 

the NPRM proposed to modify 

§ 91.319(f)(2) to allow a person 

receiving flight training to lease certain 

ELSA for the purpose of accomplishing 

solo flight and a practical test in 

accordance with a training program 

included in the deviation authority 

authorized in accordance with proposed 

§ 91.326(b). The proposed revisions 

were intended to increase the 

availability of light-sport aircraft for 

training and aid individuals who wish 

to train in the type of aircraft they 

operate. 

1. Summary of the Comments 

Two commenters, Aero Sports 

Connection Inc. (ASC) and EAA, 

supported changes to § 91.319(e), but 

with conditions. The FAA received no 

opposing comments related to the 

proposed changes to § 91.319(e). 

EAA supported the proposed rule 

language in § 91.319(e)(2) to remove the 

sunset date for experimental aircraft, 

citing the amendment as an essential 

step toward reversing the net effect of 

eliminating training opportunities due 

to the low volume of S–LSAs and 

exclusion of E–LSAs. However, EAA 

noted the proposed rule change does not 

modify the language in § 91.319(e) that 

specifies eligibility is limited to ELSA 

certificated under § 21.191(i)(1). EAA 

explained that, while this proposed 

change increases the pool of available 

light aircraft for training, it excludes 

flight training, checking, and testing in 

ELSA certificated under § 21.191(i)(2) 

and (3) (i.e., kit-built ELSA and ELSA 

previously issued a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category (SLSA) under § 21.190, 

respectively). EAA asserted that since 

both of these certification pathways 

begin with conformity to ASTM 

International standards,69 while the 

‘‘grandfathered’’ aircraft do not, EAA 

cannot contemplate a safety case for 

excluding these aircraft from training or 

glider towing. EAA suggested removal 

of introductory text in § 91.319(e) 

functioning to limit the exception to 

only those aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate under 

§ 21.191(i)(1).70


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80324 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

accommodate kit-built E–LSAs if MOSAIC’s 

proposal to move certification language on kit-built 

E–LSA aircraft from § 21.191(i)(2) to § 21.191(j) 

finalizes. 

71Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the 

Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, 69 FR 44772 (July 

27, 2004). 

72Removal of the Date Restriction for Flight 

Training in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, 

NPRM, 83 FR 53590 (Oct. 24, 2018). Removal of the 

Date Restriction for Flight Training in Experimental 

Light Sport Aircraft; Withdrawal, 88 FR 41045 (Jun. 

23, 2023). 

73See 14 CFR 1.1 definition of ‘‘consensus 

standard.’’ 

74Examples of towing provisions in part 91 

include § 91.309, which provides requirements for 

the towing of a glider or unpowered ultralight 

vehicle, and § 91.311, which provides requirements 

for towing vehicles not covered under § 91.309. 

75 88 FR 41194 at 41208. 

76Public Law 117–263. 

ASC proposed to add a privilege for 

sport pilots to offer ‘‘transition-for-hire’’ 

training in a subgroup of light sport 

aircraft ASC describes as high drag/low 

mass aircraft with a stall speed less than 

39 mph. ASC labeled this subgroup as 

‘‘Lighter Sport Aircraft, or LrSA.’’ ASC 

further clarified that the proposed 

training would be limited to take-off, 

minimum controllable airspeed, and 

landing, and that this training would 

not be applicable to the student’s next 

flight certificate. ASC asserted that the 

need for this type of training was 

generated because of the 2004 final rule 

related to light sport aircraft.71 ASC 

described a dearth of available LrSA and 

instructors because of the new rule, 

which forced LrSA previously 

authorized for flight training by 

exemption to register as ELSA. The 

newly-registered ELSA aircraft were 

prohibited from flight training 

operations after 2010 in accordance 

with § 91.319(e)(2). To resolve the 

perceived dearth of available LrSA 

aircraft and instructors, ASC proposed 

to modify sport pilot privileges to 

enable the previously described 

transition-for-hire training without the 

requirement to hold a flight instructor 

certificate or Sport Pilot flight instructor 

certificate. 

2. FAA Response 

Although the FAA will enable 

compensated flight training in certain 

aircraft holding special airworthiness 

certificates with this final rule, 

including experimental light sport 

aircraft, the FAA did not propose 

changes to sport pilot regulations or 

aircraft described by ASC as ‘‘LrSA’’ in 

the NPRM. For this reason, the changes 

recommended in the comment are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

While the FAA proposed to revise 

certain paragraphs within § 91.319, it 

did not propose to revise the 

introductory language of § 91.319(e), 

which states that no person may operate 

an aircraft issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191(i) for 

compensation or hire, except a person 

may operate an aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate only under 

§ 21.191(i)(1) in certain scenarios (i.e., 

the exceptions set forth in standing 

paragraph (e)(1) and proposed 

paragraph (e)(2)). As noted by EAA’s 

comment, the FAA did not propose to 

include those aircraft certificated under 

§ 21.191(i)(2) (light-sport aircraft that 

has been assembled from an aircraft kit 

and is in accordance with 

manufacturer’s assembly instructions 

that meet an applicable consensus 

standard) or § 21.191(i)(3) (has 

previously been issued a special 

airworthiness certificate in the lightsport category under § 21.190). 

Originally, the removal of the date 

restriction in § 91.319(e)(2) was part of 

another rule.72 When that rule was 

absorbed into this current rule, the FAA 

attempted to remain consistent with the 

original rule, which did not include 

changes to the introductory language of 

§ 91.319(e). 

However, the FAA agrees with EAA’s 

suggestion to broaden the scope of 

aircraft available for flight training, 

flightcrew member checking, or 

flightcrew member testing (i.e., 

operations under § 91.326) and, 

therefore, this final rule revises 

§ 91.319(e)(2) to be inclusive of aircraft 

certificated under § 21.191(i) as a whole. 

ELSA certificated under § 21.191(i)(2) 

and (3) either meet an applicable 

consensus standard or met such a 

standard previously, indicating the 

presence of standards for aircraft design 

and performance, required equipment, 

manufacturer quality assurance systems, 

production acceptance test procedures, 

operating instructions, maintenance and 

inspection procedures, identification 

and recording of major repairs and 

major alterations, and continued 

airworthiness.73 This consensus 

standard ascertains a comprehensive 

quality of the aircraft such that the FAA 

finds no reason it should be excluded 

from these operations. 

The FAA notes that the proposal did 

not contain any revisions to the various 

provisions within part 91 related to 

towing operations.74 Utilizing ELSA 

certificated under § 21.191(i)(2) or (3) 

for compensated glider towing is 

outside the scope of this rule, 

particularly at the final rule stage where 

the FAA has neither had an opportunity 

to analyze towing regulations, aircraft, 

and safety considerations, nor solicit 

comments on changes to such 

operations. 

Accordingly, this final rule modifies 

§ 91.319(e) to include aircraft 

certificated under § 21.191, as a whole, 

for use in flight training and other 

operations set forth by the new § 91.326. 

Specifically, this final rule revises 

§ 91.319(e) to state that no person may 

operate a light-sport aircraft that is 

issued an experimental certificate under 

§ 21.191 for compensation or hire with 

two exceptions. Under revised 

§ 91.319(e)(1), a person will be able to 

operate an aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate under 

§ 21.191(i)(1) to tow a glider that is a 

light-sport aircraft or unpowered 

ultralight vehicle in accordance with 

§ 91.309 (i.e., the status quo, as these 

revisions are largely editorial in nature 

only). Additionally, revised 

§ 91.319(e)(2) will permit a person to 

operate an aircraft issued an 

experimental certificate under § 21.191 

to conduct operations authorized under 

§ 91.326. The FAA did not receive any 

comments related to the proposed 

change to § 91.319(f), (f)(1), and (f)(2) 

and adopts those changes as proposed. 

H. Exception To Operating Certain 

Aircraft for the Purposes of Flight 

Training, Flightcrew Member Checking, 

or Flightcrew Member Testing (§ 91.326) 

Currently, §§ 91.315, 91.319, and 

91.325 prohibit operating limited 

category, experimental, and primary 

category aircraft carrying persons or 

property for compensation or hire; these 

regulations generally prohibit flight 

training, checking, and testing when 

compensation is provided. As discussed 

in the NPRM,75 aircraft owners seeking 

to receive flight training in their own 

personal-use experimental aircraft, and 

flight instructors providing that training 

for compensation, applied for a LODA 

through a streamlined process. 

However, section 5604 of the 2023 

NDAA contains a provision that 

removes the LODA requirement for 

flight training, testing, and checking in 

experimental aircraft under certain 

conditions while prohibiting an 

authorized instructor from providing 

both the training and the aircraft.76

To effectuate the provisions of the 

NDAA into the regulations, in the 

NPRM, the FAA proposed to add 

§ 91.326 to delineate the requirements 

related to flight training, checking, and 

testing in certain aircraft holding 

limited category, primary category, and 

experimental airworthiness certificates. 

The proposed language in § 91.326(a) 

would specify activities not requiring a 

LODA (i.e., codification of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80325 

legislation): those operations for the 

purpose of flight training, checking, or 

testing provided the authorized 

instructor is not providing both the 

training and the aircraft; no person 

advertises or broadly offers the aircraft 

as available for flight training, checking, 

or testing; and no person receives 

compensation for the use of the aircraft 

for a specific flight during which flight 

training, checking, or testing was 

received, other than expenses for 

owning, operating, and maintaining the 

aircraft. To note, the proposal included 

limited category and primary category 

aircraft, in addition to experimental 

aircraft, because the safety justification 

for enabling these activities equally 

applied. Proposed § 91.326(b) would 

identify operations requiring a LODA 

(flight training, checking, or testing in a 

limited category or experimental aircraft 

except as provided in proposed 

§ 91.326(a) and (c)), and prescribe the 

application framework and 

administrative process. Proposed 

§ 91.326(c) would function to sunset all 

LODAs issued under current § 91.319(h) 

(which this final rule reserves, as 

operations requiring a LODA will move 

to new § 91.326). 

This section of the preamble describes 

comments received on new § 91.326, 

discusses the revisions as an outgrowth 

of public comments, and explains the 

modified section reorganization adopted 

in this final rule. 

1. Change to Title of § 91.326 

First, to note, § 91.326 was previously 

proposed to be titled ‘‘Exception to 

Operating Certain Aircraft for 

Compensation or Hire’’ in the NPRM. 

This final rule revises the section 

heading for § 91.326 to read ‘‘Exception 

to operating certain aircraft for the 

purposes of flight training, flightcrew 

member checking, or flightcrew member 

testing.’’ This final rule revises the 

section heading for two reasons. First, as 

subsequently discussed, § 91.326 was 

reorganized, and a provision is added 

herein to account for operations that are 

uncompensated. Second, the section 

heading is modified to clarify that the 

rule is applicable only to flight training, 

checking, and testing for flightcrew 

members to prevent conflation of 

flightcrew member testing and flight 

testing of an experimental aircraft (e.g., 

testing new equipment or aircraft 

designs). Since flight testing is a 

commonly used term in experimental 

aircraft for the latter purpose, the 

adopted title intends to clarify 

application of the new section. 

2. General Provisions of § 91.326(a) 

In light of the subsequently explained 

changes in section 1.B. of this preamble, 

this final rule modifies the organization 

of new § 91.326 from that which was 

proposed. While proposed § 91.326(a) 

previously set forth the circumstances 

under which an authorized instructor, 

registered owner, lessor, or lessee would 

be permitted to operate an aircraft for 

the purpose of flight training, checking, 

or testing and, in the case of an 

experimental aircraft, for a purpose 

other than that for which the certificate 

was issued, this final rule relocates that 

proposed paragraph (a) and the 

proposed conditions of paragraph (a)(1) 

through (3) to § 91.326(c). Instead, 

paragraph (a), as adopted in this final 

rule, functions to specify that 

notwithstanding the prohibitions in 

§§ 91.315, 91.319, and 91.325, a person 

may conduct flight training, checking, 

or testing in a limited category aircraft, 

experimental aircraft, or primary 

category aircraft under the provisions of 

§ 91.326 to provide a generalized 

applicability paragraph within the 

section. 

3. Operations Requiring a LODA in 

91.326(b) 

For those operations that cannot meet 

the conditions for operating without a 

LODA, the FAA proposed § 91.326(b) to 

codify a consistent framework for 

requesting a LODA to conduct flight 

training, checking, and testing in 

limited category and experimental 

aircraft similar to the allowance 

currently reflected in § 91.319(h) for 

experimental aircraft. Specifically, 

§ 91.326(b) proposed that any person 

who wants to conduct flight training, 

checking, or testing in limited category 

and experimental aircraft outside the 

restrictions and limitations of proposed 

§ 91.326(a) (changed to § 91.326(c) in 

this final rule) must apply for deviation 

authority. 

Particularly, proposed § 91.326(b)(1) 

functioned to clarify that operators 

would be granted relief from § 91.315 or 

§ 91.319(a) through a LODA. In 

addition, the FAA proposed to add 

§ 91.326(b)(2) to enable the FAA to 

cancel or amend a LODA if it 

determines that the deviation holder has 

failed to comply with the conditions 

and limitations or if at any time the 

Administrator determines that the 

deviation is no longer necessary or in 

the interest of safety. Section 

91.326(b)(3) proposed a timeline for 

operators to submit LODA applications, 

the form and manner requirements for 

submission, and the information that 

the applicant must provide. Section 

91.326(b)(4) would permit the 

Administrator to continue prescribing 

conditions and limitations in LODAs for 

experimental aircraft and extended that 

allowance to LODAs issued for training, 

testing, and checking in limited category 

aircraft when necessary for safety. To 

note, the FAA published and sought 

comment on a draft AC, which was 

placed in the docket upon NPRM 

publication, that provided a full list of 

conditions and limitations in Table 4, 

‘‘Additional Limitations.’’ Proposed 

§ 91.326(b)(5) would limit the persons 

permitted to be on board an aircraft 

during operations under a LODA: 

besides the instructor, designated 

examiner, and the person receiving the 

training, checking, or testing, only 

persons deemed essential to the safe 

operation of the aircraft would be 

permitted to be carried on board the 

aircraft. Finally, proposed § 91.326(b)(6) 

would limit the types of training, 

testing, and checking that may be 

authorized under the deviation 

authority. 

The following sections describe 

commenters’ discrete issues on 

paragraph (b) and resulting revisions. 

Except as described in the following 

sections, § 91.326(b) is adopted as 

proposed. 

i. Specificity 

The FAA received feedback regarding 

the specificity of § 91.326(b). EAA 

expressed concern that § 91.326(b) was 

written with unnecessary specificity 

and may lead to future inflexibility. 

EAA recommended that the FAA reduce 

the text in § 91.326(b) to the minimum 

necessary to establish a safe and 

efficient LODA framework. Further, 

EAA recommended that the FAA 

administer more specific requirements 

on LODAs through policy by deleting 

the paragraphs proposed under 

§ 91.326(b)(3) (enumerating the 

requirements to be included in the 

LODA request) and simply requiring the 

request for deviation to contain a 

complete description of the proposed 

operation which establishes a level of 

safety equivalent to that provided under 

the regulations for the deviation 

requested in a manner acceptable to the 

Administrator. 

While the FAA agrees that § 91.326(b) 

as proposed is specific as to what the 

LODA request must include, the FAA 

finds it is not unnecessarily so. Under 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 

agencies may promulgate rules that 

describe the agency’s procedures using 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80326 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

77Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq. 

78Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. 

79See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 11, Sec. 1, 

Use of Aircraft Issued Experimental Certificates in 

Flight Training for Compensation or Hire, dated 5/ 

24/2011, para. 3–293(B)(2) which states, ‘‘The FAA 

will issue training deviations to permit the conduct 

of training that can only be accomplished in aircraft 

with experimental certificates. LODAs should not 

be issued to permit flight training in experimental 

aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot 

certificate, rating, or operating privilege.’’ Likewise, 

the same paragraph states, ‘‘LODAs also should not 

be issued to permit flight training such as aerobatics 

or training leading to the issuance of an 

endorsement (e.g., tailwheel or pressurized aircraft, 

or a complex or high performance airplane). This 

training is available in aircraft holding Standard 

Airworthiness Certificates and it is therefore not 

acceptable to issue a LODA for the purpose of 

conducting such training.’’ 

notice-and-comment rulemaking.77 The 

FAA drafted § 91.326(b) to adequately 

explain its proposed procedures to 

apply for and receive deviation 

authority under the regulation. Because 

the requirements in § 91.326(b) are 

generally applicable to all LODA 

applicants and holders, it is appropriate 

that they should be memorialized in 

regulation instead of in guidance 

material or through policy. 

Furthermore, notice-and-comment 

rulemaking provides the public the 

opportunity to participate in rulemaking 

through submission of written data, 

views, or arguments.78 If the FAA chose 

to issue the procedures under which 

deviation authority is authorized as 

policy or guidance, the public may not 

have the same opportunity to provide 

comments on them, nor would the 

public be adequately informed of the 

information they are required to 

provide. Additionally, shortening the 

description of procedures described in 

§ 91.326(b) could lead to additional 

confusion due to a lessened degree of 

specificity on the process in the 

regulation. 

ii. FAA Ability To Deny an Application 

for a LODA 

Proposed § 91.326(b)(2) set forth that 

the FAA could cancel or amend a LODA 

upon a determination that the deviation 

holder failed to comply with the 

conditions and limitations or if at any 

time the Administrator determines that 

the deviation is no longer necessary or 

in the interest of safety. Historically, the 

FAA has denied an application for a 

LODA if it determines the proposed 

deviation would not be in the interest of 

safety or is unnecessary. For example, if 

an applicant were to request a LODA to 

provide § 61.56 flight reviews to trainees 

who do not have a specific need to 

receive a flight review in an aircraft 

with a special airworthiness certificate, 

the FAA would deny the application 

because there are a sufficient number of 

aircraft with standard airworthiness 

certificates in which a person could 

receive a flight review. Similarly, the 

FAA finds it necessary to memorialize 

this discretion when considering 

whether to grant or deny a LODA under 

§ 91.326. Therefore, the FAA is adding 

language to § 91.326(b)(2) to parallel the 

language in proposed paragraph (b)(2) to 

memorialize its discretion to deny an 

application for a LODA based on safety 

or necessity determinations. 

iii. Removal of Requirement To Submit 

Previous Exemptions With LODA 

Application 

Additionally, proposed 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(vi) would have required 

an applicant to submit copies to the 

FAA of each exemption issued to that 

applicant as part of the LODA request. 

This final rule removes this requirement 

from the list of information required to 

be submitted with a request for a LODA. 

The FAA reviewed this requirement 

during the pendency of this rulemaking 

and finds it is no longer necessary to 

require this submission by the 

applicant, as exemptions are maintained 

by the FAA and can be researched and 

reviewed utilizing internal databases. In 

turn, this removal redesignates each 

following paragraph (i.e., proposed 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(vii) requiring a detailed 

training program is adopted as 

paragraph (b)(3)(vi), proposed 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(viii) requiring certain 

descriptions of the applicant’s process is 

adopted as paragraph (b)(3)(vii), etc.). 

iv. Specific Need for Certain Training 

(Proposed as § 91.326(b)(3)(viii)) 

The FAA proposed to add 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(viii) to require a LODA 

applicant to submit a description of the 

applicant’s process to determine 

whether a trainee has a specific need for 

formation or aerobatic training, or 

training leading to the issuance of an 

endorsement, if that LODA applicant 

seeks to offer such training. To note, the 

submission would be required to 

describe how the LODA applicant 

would determine whether a trainee has 

a ‘‘specific need’’ to receive such 

training. The NPRM identified some 

examples of trainees with a ‘‘specific 

need,’’ including aircraft builders and 

owners. The aircraft proposed to be 

used for training requiring a ‘‘specific 

need’’ under a LODA must have 

handling qualities and flight 

characteristics similar to those of the 

aircraft being built or flown by the 

trainee. The FAA noted that trainees 

should have regular access to 

substantially similar aircraft as those 

used for training requiring a ‘‘specific 

need,’’ and would benefit from the 

additional training under a LODA, as 

training can expand pilot skills that are 

transferrable to the aircraft they will 

regularly fly. Persons without a specific 

need can receive aerobatic training, 

formation training, or training leading to 

the issuance of an endorsement in an 

aircraft holding a standard 

airworthiness certificate. 

EAA stated that they appreciated the 

FAA’s proposed flexibility in expanding 

the list of eligible LODA training to 

include endorsements and formation 

and aerobatic training; however, EAA 

opposed the proposal of 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(viii) requiring a trainee to 

have a specific need to receive certain 

types of flight training under a LODA. 

First, EAA asserted that certificated 

pilots are not members of the 

unknowing public, and they are 

qualified to make decisions on managed 

risks, resulting in many safety-related 

reasons why they may choose to pursue 

training in these types of aircraft, 

including, for example, safety benefits 

in training in unique and challenging 

aircraft. EAA also described other types 

of training available under a LODA 

without the demonstration of a ‘‘specific 

need,’’ including type-specific transition 

and turbojet unusual attitude and upset 

recovery training. EAA stated that a 

more diverse training fleet (including 

experimental and limited category 

aircraft) will offset any risk of training 

in those aircraft given the appropriate 

mitigations contained in the rule and 

policy, although its comment provided 

no data to support that assertion. 

Finally, EAA pointed out that various 

types of training may align with a pilot’s 

interests and may be tangential to other 

flight training. In sum, EAA, first, 

renewed its recommendation to remove 

the entirety of the paragraphs proposed 

under § 91.326(b)(3) or, more narrowly, 

recommended removal of proposed 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(viii). 

Historically, the FAA has limited the 

types of flight training available under 

a LODA.79 Consistent with the historical 

rationale for limiting operations 

authorized under a LODA, the primary 

reason such operations remain limited 

is because these kinds of flight training 

are readily available in aircraft holding 

standard airworthiness certificates. The 

FAA recognizes that there is value in 

receiving flight training in an aircraft 

similar to that which the trainee will 

regularly operate. Likewise, there is 

value in receiving certain specialized 

training (such as aerobatics and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80327 

80 88 FR 41194 at 41212. 81To note, these changes do not add any major 

substantive requirements to the limitations as set 

forth in the proposed AC. 

formation) when the trainee plans to 

conduct that type of flying after training 

in an aircraft with substantially similar 

handling characteristics. For these 

reasons, the FAA proposed to expand 

the types of training authorized under a 

LODA to include aerobatics and 

endorsements, but only for persons with 

a specific need, as previously described, 

to receive that training in an aircraft 

holding a special airworthiness 

certificate. However, the FAA declines 

to permit these operations as broadly as 

these operations may be conducted in a 

standard category aircraft. 

The use of aircraft holding special 

airworthiness certificates for unfettered 

training undermines the foundational 

safety considerations for rigorous 

certification standards required to 

achieve a standard airworthiness 

certificate. Standard category aircraft are 

designed and tested for safety and 

reliability in accordance with FAA 

certification standards, whereas aircraft 

holding special airworthiness 

certificates are not. Broadly expanding 

operations authorized under a LODA 

could encourage flight schools and other 

part 61 flight training providers to 

replace their proven standard category 

aircraft with less expensive 

experimental versions, which could 

have a detrimental effect on safety (e.g., 

by increasing the accident rate during 

training) due to the fact that 

experimental aircraft do not meet a 

certification standard and have not 

demonstrated reliability to the FAA. 

Although EAA reasoned that 

certificated pilots who undertake flight 

training are not members of the 

unknowing public, and that other types 

of training are available under a LODA 

without a specific need, the FAA does 

not agree that all types of training 

should be made available under a 

LODA. The FAA is making a distinction 

and limiting eligible types of training 

under a LODA to training that is not 

readily available in aircraft holding 

standard airworthiness certificates (for 

example, training toward experimental 

authorizations and limited category type 

ratings, and jet unusual upset and 

recovery training), or certain training 

which may be available in aircraft with 

standard category airworthiness 

certificates (for example, aerobatics and 

training leading to endorsements), but 

which the trainee has a specific need to 

receive under a LODA. The primary 

reason for limiting flight training as 

described is to minimize exposure in 

aircraft that are inherently less safe, 

even when trainees may be in a position 

to accept risk. Pilots are not trained and 

tested on the differences between 

experimental aircraft and aircraft with 

standard airworthiness certificates as 

part of any pilot certification (e.g., 

private, commercial, etc.): therefore, 

these persons may not have the 

necessary information or knowledge to 

accept all risks associated with these 

aircraft just because they may be 

engaging in training, checking, or 

testing. Likewise, persons undergoing 

flight training span a large spectrum of 

knowledge, from a student on their first 

flight to a person in the final stages of 

flight training prior to taking a check 

ride. For these reasons, the FAA will 

continue to limit the types of training 

offered under a LODA and will finalize 

the regulation as proposed. 

Therefore, in the final rule, the FAA 

maintains the requirements in 

§ 91.326(b)(3)(viii) as proposed. The 

FAA notes that, because of the removal 

of proposed § 91.326(b)(3)(vi), as 

previously discussed, this provision is 

redesignated as § 91.326(b)(3)(vii). 

v. LODA AC Limitations Moved to 

Regulation 

As previously noted, the FAA 

simultaneously published the LODA 

Advisory Circular (AC) with the NPRM 

in June 2023. This AC included Table 4, 

‘‘Additional Limitations,’’ which the 

FAA explained contained the full list of 

conditions and limitations imposed 

with a LODA. These conditions and 

limitations add risk mitigations for 

specific operations. The FAA sought 

comment on the AC in tandem with the 

NPRM, specifically requesting feedback 

on Table 4 in the AC.80 During the 

pendency of the rulemaking, the FAA 

examined the overarching applicability 

of each of the operating limitations as 

set forth on current LODAs and as set 

forth in the AC. While these operating 

limitations were originally in Table 4 of 

the AC, the FAA has determined these 

must be included in regulation rather 

than in guidance because they are rules 

of general applicability to all LODA 

holders. This means that the additional 

limitations would uniformly be applied 

to all LODA holders unless an applicant 

requests a modification (in which case, 

the FAA will have the opportunity to 

evaluate whether the request is in the 

interest of safety). Additionally, while 

the FAA cedes these operating 

limitations were not set forth in the 

proposed regulations themselves, the 

FAA finds that the public had sufficient 

notice via publication in the docket and 

an opportunity to comment on Table 4’s 

operating limitations during the 

comment period. Notably, the 

limitations and table have been removed 

from the final AC and inserted into 

regulation through this Final Rule. 

In sum, the following limitations have 

been adopted in § 91.326(b)(4): 

AC Table 

4 citation 

Final rule regulatory 

citation Operating limitation Change from AC to final rule 81

No. 1 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(i) ....... The operator must use the aircraft-specific flight and ground 

training program for the training authorized by the LODA. 

Demonstration flights, discovery flights, experience flights, 

and other flights not related to the training program are not 

authorized.

No change. 

No. 2 ....... Not applicable .......... Persons conducting instruction under this LODA (§ 91.326(5)):

• Must be qualified to act as PIC in the aircraft being flown .....

• Must hold a Certificated Flight Instructor (CFI) certificate or 

be otherwise authorized by the Administrator to provide flight 

training in the specific aircraft.

This operating limitation was not adopted 

into § 91.326(b)(4) because the requirements for a flight instructor to be qualified to act as PIC in the aircraft and 

hold a flight instructor certificate to conduct flight training were already required 

by the § 61.1 definition of ‘‘authorized 

instructor’’ and by §§ 61.193 and 

61.413, rendering this operating limitation duplicative. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80328 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

AC Table 

4 citation 

Final rule regulatory 

citation Operating limitation Change from AC to final rule 81

No. 3 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(ii) ...... As appropriate to the aircraft being flown, all trainees must 

hold: a category and class rating; a type rating, Authorized 

Experimental Aircraft authorization, or temporary Letter of 

Authorization; and endorsements listed in § 61.31, as appropriate, with the following exceptions: 

1. Persons receiving gyroplane training or training leading to 

the initial issuance of a sport pilot certificate or flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating in a low mass, high 

drag aircraft with an empty weight less than 650 pounds and 

a VH ≤ 87 Knots Calibrated Airspeed (KCAS) are not required to hold category or class ratings. For training leading 

to an endorsement for additional sport pilot privileges, the 

pilot receiving the training must hold at least a sport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and endorsements issued under § 61.31, as appropriate. 

2. Persons with a specific need to receive training toward the 

issuance of an endorsement are not required to hold the 

§ 61.31 endorsement sought. Any endorsements being provided must be authorized in the LODA. 

3. Persons receiving jet unusual attitude and upset recovery 

training, limited category type rating training, or authorized 

experimental aircraft authorization training, if required for the 

type of aircraft being flown, are not required to hold the applicable type rating, authorized experimental authorization rating, or a temporary Letter of Authorization, prior to the commencement of training. 

4. For ultralight-style training, the person receiving training is 

not required to meet category and class ratings or § 61.31 

endorsement requirements. However, if the flight training includes a solo flight segment, this does not relieve the person 

receiving training from the requirements of part 61, subpart 

C. This training is limited to a low mass, high drag aircraft 

with an empty weight less than 650 pounds and a maximum 

speed in level flight with maximum continuous power less 

than 87 KCAS. 

Addition of the language low mass, high 

drag aircraft with an empty weight less 

than 650 pounds in item 1 because the 

omission from the AC was an oversight, 

as noted by EAA; minor editorial revisions. 

No. 4 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(iii) ...... If the aircraft is equipped with ejection seats and systems, such 

systems must be rigged, maintained, and inspected in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Before 

providing training in aircraft equipped with operable ejection 

systems, whether armed or not armed, all aircraft occupants 

must complete a course of ejection seat training. 

No change. 

No. 5 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(iv) ..... When conducting spin and upset training, the operator must 

maintain a minimum recovery altitude of 6,000 feet above 

ground level unless the Administrator authorizes a lower altitude. 

Addition of ‘‘unless the Administrator authorizes a lower altitude’’ to provide 

operational flexibility when warranted. 

No. 6 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(v) ...... A copy of the LODA must be carried on board the aircraft during flight training conducted under the LODA. No change. 

No. 7 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(vi) ..... The LODA holder must keep a record of the training given for a 

period of 36 calendar months from the completion date of the 

training. The authorized instructor must sign the trainee’s 

flight training records certifying that the flight training or 

ground training was given. The training record must include 

the following: 

1. The name and certificate number (if applicable) of the trainee; 

2. The name, signature, and certificate number of the instructor; 

3. The date trained; 

4. The training received; 

5. The trainee’s specific need for training, if applicable. 

Minor editorial revisions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80329 

82See 88 FR 41194 at 41212 for comprehensive 

discussion on the FAA’s analysis of who would be 

Continued 

AC Table 

4 citation 

Final rule regulatory 

citation Operating limitation Change from AC to final rule 81

No. 8 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(vii) ..... Notwithstanding § 43.1(b) or § 91.409(c)(1), all aircraft must: 

1. Except for turbine powered or large aircraft, within the preceding 100 hours of time in service, have received an annual, 100-hour, or condition inspection equivalent to the 

scope and detail of part 43, appendix D, and been approved 

for return to service in accordance with part 43. The 100- 

hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours 

while enroute to reach a place where the inspection can be 

done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the 

next 100 hours of time in service; or 

2. Except for turbine powered or large aircraft, be inspected in 

accordance with an FAA-approved inspection program that 

includes provisions for ensuring continued airworthiness and 

recording the current status on life-limited parts and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 

3. For turbine-powered or large aircraft, be inspected in accordance with an FAA-approved inspection program that meets 

the scope and detail of the requirements of § 91.409(e), 

(f)(4), and (g) for ensuring continued airworthiness and recording time remaining on life-limited parts in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions. 

Addition of: reference to § 43.1(b), exception to turbine powered or large aircraft, 

and appendix D to part 43 (to clarify the 

scope and detail necessary of the longstanding requirement for aircraft operating under a LODA to have an annual, 

100-hour, or condition inspection every 

100 hours), and flexibility to allow an 

exceedance of this limit for certain purposes. 

No. 9 ....... § 91.326(b)(4)(viii) .... Notwithstanding any exception due to the experimental airworthiness certification of the aircraft, LODA holders with experimental aircraft must comply with FAA Airworthiness Directives applicable to any corresponding make or model aircraft holding a different type of airworthiness certificate or applicable to any article installed on the aircraft. The LODA 

holder must evaluate the aircraft and its articles to determine 

if compliance with the FAA Airworthiness Directive is necessary for the continued safe operation of the aircraft. LODA 

holders must keep a maintenance record entry of those FAA 

Airworthiness Directives evaluated. For those FAA Airworthiness Directives for which the LODA holder determined compliance was necessary for the continued safe operation of 

the aircraft, the record must also include the method of compliance, and if the FAA Airworthiness Directive requires recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. 

Notwithstanding language added to clarify 

the requirement for compliance with Airworthiness Directives. 

No. 10 ..... Not applicable .......... The responsible person accepts responsibility for complying 

with the requirements of the conditions and limitations of this 

LODA by signing this document. If the responsible person relinquishes responsibility, this LODA becomes invalid. The 

name, email address, and telephone number of the responsible person signing this LODA must be listed in the LODA 

(§ 91.326(b)(4)). 

This operating limitation was not adopted 

in regulation because § 91.326(b)(3)(ii) 

requires identification of an individual 

with ultimate responsibility for operations under the LODA. This person will 

be listed on the LODA. Therefore, limitation No. 10 was repetitive. 

Finally, in this final rule, the FAA 

adds the language ‘‘unless otherwise 

authorized by the Administrator’’ to the 

introductory paragraph of § 91.326(b)(4). 

While the provisions of § 91.326(b)(4) 

are generally applicable, the FAA 

recognizes there may be circumstances 

unique to the LODA operation sought 

that may warrant flexibility and could 

still be conducted safely. In general, 

when a person seeks to operate contrary 

to a regulation, they must petition for 

exemption under part 11, which 

requires that they must also have a 

public interest to support the petition. 

Because specific changes that a unique 

LODA applicant may request may not 

benefit the public as a whole (e.g., 

individualized circumstances), 

exemption criteria would not be met. 

This addition enables individualized 

assessment of the addition or removal of 

conditions and limitations to a LODA, 

thereby increasing flexibility while still 

maintaining specificity of the conditions 

and limitations that will generally be 

applied to all applicants in the 

regulation. 

vi. Persons Permitted on Board During 

Operations Under a LODA 

The NPRM proposed to add 

§ 91.326(b)(5) to limit the persons 

permitted to be on board an aircraft 

during operations under a LODA to only 

the authorized instructor, designated 

examiner, person receiving flight 

training or being checked or tested, or 

persons essential for the safe operation 

of the aircraft. This is because, as 

previously described in this preamble, 

the airworthiness certification standards 

for aircraft that hold special 

airworthiness certificates do not rise to 

the level of demonstrated safety and 

reliability of those holding standard 

airworthiness certificates. Also, 

additional persons on board who are not 

directly related to flight training could 

cause unnecessary distractions during 

flight training, posing a risk to trainees. 

Therefore, the FAA proposed to limit 

persons on board to those authorized 

instructors, designated examiners, 

persons receiving flight training (or 

being checked or tested), and those 

persons ‘‘essential for the safe operation 

of the aircraft’’ to ensure those persons 

performing certain crucial functions are 

not excluded from facilitating a safe 

aircraft operation.82 Outside of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80330 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

considered a person conducting functions 

‘‘essential for the safe operation of the aircraft.’’ 

83EAA’s comment also noted the location in the 

draft AC where this change would need to be 

effectuated, if adopted in the final rule. 84Legal Interpretation to John Olshock (May 4, 

2007). EAA summarizes the legal interpretation as 

making several references to the instructor having 

discretion over the number of persons onboard the 

aircraft and concludes with the statement ‘‘the 

instructor also may permit others on board for 

instructional purposes.’’ 

85See § 61.195, Flight instructor limitations and 

qualifications, and Legal Interpretation to Lawrence 

Williams (Aug. 27, 2018), which states, ‘‘Section 

61.195(g)(2), in pertinent part, requires a flight 

instructor who provides flight training for a pilot 

certificate or rating issued under part 61, to provide 

flight training in an aircraft that has at least two 

pilot stations. Canons of construction prescribe that 

all language in a statute be given effect. Therefore, 

the FAA should construe regulatory text so that no 

word or clause is rendered superfluous, void or 

insignificant. Accordingly, the FAA interprets 

§ 61.195(g)(2) as requiring one pilot station for the 

student and one pilot station for the flight 

instructor.’’ 

86See Limited Type Certificate Data Sheet No. 

AL–2, Minimum Crew. Section 61.55 sets forth the 

qualifications required for a person to serve as a 

second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated 

for more than one required pilot flight crewmember 

or in operations requiring a second-in-command 

pilot flight crewmember. 

87See § 61.55(f)(3). In addition, the 

familiarization training does not apply to: a person 

who is designated and qualified as a PIC under 

subpart K of part 91 or part 121, 125, or 135 in that 

specific type of aircraft; designated as SIC under 

subpart K of part 91 or part 121, 125, or 135 in that 

specific type of aircraft; or designated as a safety 

pilot for purposes required by § 91.109. See 

§ 61.55(f)(1), (2), and (4). 

personnel delineated in the proposed 

§ 91.326(b)(5), the proposal did not 

contemplate the additional carriage of 

persons on board the aircraft even with 

the issuance of a LODA. 

Champaign Aviation Museum (CAM) 

and EAA specifically opposed the 

proposal to add § 91.326(b)(5). CAM 

commented that the ability for an 

additional pilot to be included during a 

training flight is important, regardless of 

whether the operation is conducted 

under a LODA. CAM described four 

scenarios whereby an additional person 

who would otherwise be prohibited by 

§ 91.326(b)(5) should be permitted to be 

on the aircraft during operations under 

a LODA. The four scenarios set forth by 

CAM described the additional extra 

person(s): 

• New SICs to see the checklist 

process and Crew Resource 

Management (CRM) from an instructor, 

watch a flight crew conduct training, 

and listen to crew coordination from a 

jumpseat; 

• Observing procedures and 

operations by another pilot (with an 

instructor in the right seat) when two 

pilots are training for the same type 

rating; 

• An instructor in the jumpseat to 

observe and provide feedback on CRM 

for a new pairing of captain and SIC 

who have not otherwise flown together; 

and 

• Training in an aircraft to an airport 

with long runways for new volunteer 

pilots who have little experience in the 

corresponding braking mechanisms to 

reduce burden on landing just to switch 

training pilots (e.g., B–25 training). 

CAM also expressed concern that 

§ 91.326(b)(5) might be construed to 

prohibit additional persons onboard 

during non-LODA operations, as 

described in some of the referenced 

scenarios. 

EAA and Warbirds of America (WOA) 

sought expanded flexibility for more 

than one person receiving training 

during the course of a given flight. 

Specifically, EAA and WOA stated that 

it is a common practice in larger 

warbird aircraft to carry multiple 

students on a given flight and rotate 

them through the appropriate pilot seat 

for flight training. EAA explained that 

this allows, for example, multiple 

students to train air work tasks at 

altitude with a single takeoff and 

landing, which would save fuel, 

resources, and time. EAA asserted that 

students not actively receiving flight 

instruction are still educated by the 

opportunity to observe other students, 

similar to some of CAM’s provided 

examples. Likewise, EAA stated that the 

presence of those students is germane to 

the purpose of the flight, and they are 

not receiving an inappropriate ‘‘ride.’’ 

EAA proposed a regulatory text change 

in § 91.326(b)(5) indicating persons, in 

the plural, could be receiving flight 

training under the provision,83 claiming 

a legal interpretation of § 61.129 

supported this change.84 EAA asserted 

that this legal interpretation further 

supports a precedent that persons not 

seated at a pilot station could be on 

board the aircraft for ‘‘instructional 

purposes.’’ 

Section 91.326(b)(5) will apply only 

to those operations conducted under a 

LODA and will not apply to other types 

of operations. Persons who may be 

carried during operations conducted 

outside the parameters of a LODA are 

limited by § 91.315 for limited category 

aircraft, § 91.319(a) for experimental 

aircraft, and any other applicable 

regulations (e.g., § 91.9(a)). In certain 

circumstances, carriage of an observer 

may be in violation of other regulations, 

regardless of whether the operation is 

conducted under a LODA (e.g., 

§ 61.55(f)(3) and (h)(2)). For example, 

CAM referenced flight training in a 

North American B–25 while carrying a 

person observing the flight training, 

where the observer would not be sitting 

at a required crew station and, therefore, 

is not actively receiving flight training.85

Notably, since a B–25 requires two 

pilots, a qualified second-in-command 

(SIC) is required in accordance with 

§ 61.55.86 To serve as a second-incommand, among other requirements, a 

person must meet certain familiarization 

training set forth in § 61.55(b). Even 

where the regulation accounts for 

certain training circumstances under 

§ 61.55, passenger and person carriage is 

prohibited. For example, the 

familiarization training requirements do 

not apply to a person listed in § 61.55(f), 

which includes, in pertinent part, a 

person designated as the SIC in that 

specific type of aircraft to receive flight 

training required by § 61.55, however, 

no passengers or cargo may be carried 

on the aircraft.87 Further, § 61.55(h) 

permits a person to serve as SIC to meet 

the familiarization training 

requirements provided the flight is 

conducted under day VFR or day IFR, 

but no person or property may be 

carried on board the aircraft, other than 

necessary for conduct of the flight. 

Since observers are not receiving flight 

training, nor serving as a crewmember 

as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, they would be 

considered passengers. Likewise, since 

the flight could be conducted without 

an observer, any such observer would be 

deemed unnecessary for the conduct of 

the flight, and therefore prohibited from 

being carried aboard the flight. This 

scenario presupposes that the person 

receiving flight training has not met the 

requirements specified in § 61.55(f)(3) 

and (h)(2). Although this example 

highlights the potential implication of 

§ 61.55 limitations due to comments 

received, there may be other FAA 

regulations that could preclude carriage 

of additional persons. 

The FAA recognizes that there may be 

scenarios where the person receiving 

flight training in an aircraft that requires 

two pilots already meets the § 61.55 

requirements to act as SIC (e.g., when a 

fully-qualified SIC is receiving training 

to become PIC and the person providing 

the training is fully qualified to act as 

PIC). In this situation, provided the 

activity is not prohibited by any other 

regulation, there may be educational 

value for a person observing the flight 

training conducted under a LODA when 

that person is enrolled in a LODA 

training course for the same aircraft as 

that in which they are observing. 

The FAA agrees with commenters that 

carriage of these persons is in the 

interest of safety in certain 

circumstances. The FAA finds that there 

can be educational value in observing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80331 

88See Docket FAA–2011–0656, EAA Exemption 

No. 18199, Condition and Limitation no. 12(c) and 

EAA Exemption No. 19228, Condition and 

Limitation no. 11(c). 

89See North American B–25 TCDS no. AL–2 

which states, ‘‘NOTE 2. The following placards 

must be prominently displayed: (a) In the passenger 

compartment: ‘‘This is a military type aircraft and 

under the Federal Aviation Regulations shall not be 

used for the carriage of passengers or cargo for 

compensation or hire’’. The placard and lettering 

shall be of a type which can be read easily from any 

seat in the cabin.’’ 

90These circumstances were proposed as 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3). This final rule does 

not make any substantive revisions to the 

circumstances and adopts them as paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (iii). 

flight training in which the observer 

will soon participate. Likewise, the 

trainee-observers must hold a pilot 

certificate with appropriate category and 

class ratings to be enrolled in training 

under a LODA and are, therefore, in a 

position to, first, accept the risks 

associated with flight training and, 

second, understand the decorum 

expected of an observing pilot during 

flight training (i.e., mitigating risk of 

distraction). For these reasons, this final 

rule revises proposed § 91.326(b)(5) to 

accommodate observation of flight 

training by up to two persons who are 

enrolled in the same flight training 

program under the LODA, provided 

they are seated in a forwardmost 

observer seat with an unobstructed view 

of the flightdeck and provided the 

operation is not prohibited by any other 

regulation. The final rule limits the 

number of trainee-observers to two 

because the point of the allowance is to 

permit direct observation of training. 

Generally, a maximum of two positions 

with an unobstructed view of the 

flightdeck are available on an aircraft. 

These positions are often referred to as 

‘‘jumpseats’’ in larger aircraft. In smaller 

aircraft, the position might be a 

passenger seat directly behind the pilot 

seat. Likewise, the view of the 

flightdeck from more aft seats becomes 

obstructed, rendering the educational 

value void. Where there is no added 

educational value (i.e., the intent of the 

LODA authorizing such operations), the 

only remaining rationale for carrying 

such persons is cost savings, not safety. 

The FAA has previously limited traineeobservers to two persons in flight 

training exemptions, including in EAA’s 

recent grants of exemption, with no 

adverse impact on safety to date.88

In order to effectuate the addition of 

trainee-observers, the FAA also adds 

language necessary to except a 

limitation found in most limited 

category type certificate data sheets 

(TCDS).89 Because trainee-observers are 

not considered to be receiving flight 

training while not seated at a pilot 

station, they are considered passengers. 

Because the TCDS contains a required 

placard stating the aircraft shall not be 

used for the carriage of passengers for 

hire, carriage of these trainee-observers 

could be in violation of § 91.9(a), which 

requires compliance with markings, 

placards, and other aircraft limitations. 

Therefore, new § 91.326(b)(5) includes 

language to supersede the operating 

limitation applicable under § 91.9(a). 

As described in the response to 

CAM’s comment, many large warbird 

aircraft require two pilots. In these 

cases, other regulations (e.g., § 61.55(f) 

and (h) as previously explained) may 

preclude carriage of observers during 

certain types of training (e.g., training a 

new SIC who does not yet meet the 

requirements of § 61.55). The FAA urges 

operators of large warbird aircraft to 

carefully evaluate the applicability of 

other regulations prior to carrying 

observers during flight training 

operations. 

Finally, a person not seated at a pilot 

station could not be construed to be 

receiving ‘‘flight training.’’ Therefore, 

EAA’s proposed solution of changing 

‘‘person receiving flight training’’ to 

‘‘person(s) receiving flight training’’ 

would not have the desired effect. 

Although the Olshock legal 

interpretation asserts that an instructor 

may permit others on board for 

‘‘instructional purposes,’’ those persons 

could not be construed to be receiving 

flight training unless seated at a pilot 

station, as previously discussed.- 

Notably, not all limited category aircraft 

require two pilots. In aircraft that do not 

require two pilots, § 61.55 would not 

present a barrier and carriage of traineeobservers during LODA operations will 

now be permitted, as previously 

described. 

Therefore, this final rule will 

accommodate trainee observers in 

certain circumstances. The FAA finds 

this change to be in the interest of safety 

in part because, except in limited 

circumstances, persons receiving flight 

training under a LODA must possess at 

least a private pilot certificate with 

appropriate category rating and, in most 

cases, class rating prior to commencing 

training under a LODA. Because of this 

prerequisite requirement, persons 

receiving LODA training are in a 

position to assess and accept the risks 

associated with flight training. Likewise, 

it is a common practice for a trainee 

observer to observe flight training in 

progress in aircraft holding standard 

airworthiness certificates, and, except 

where otherwise prohibited by 

regulation, this practice has not been 

found to be detrimental to safety. 

Importantly, this allowance does not 

have any effect on the applicability of 

any other regulation. If the carriage of 

additional persons is prohibited by any 

other regulation, it is still prohibited 

while operating in accordance with a 

LODA (other than § 91.9(a) as 

previously described). Likewise, this 

privilege is not extended to any person 

who is not enrolled in a LODA training 

program for the same aircraft as the 

person receiving flight training. Because 

of the nature of aircraft holding special 

airworthiness certificates, the FAA is 

limiting the persons who may be carried 

on board during operations under a 

LODA. 

For these reasons, revised 

§ 91.326(b)(5) will permit up to two 

trainee observers to be carried in certain 

aircraft during operations conducted 

under a LODA, provided the carriage is 

not prohibited by any other regulation, 

the observer is enrolled in in a LODA 

training course for the same aircraft, and 

the observation takes place from a 

forwardmost observer seat with an 

unobstructed view of the flightdeck. 

4. Operations Not Requiring a LODA in 

§ 91.326(c) 

As previously discussed in this 

preamble, this final rule relocates the 

language in the NPRM’s proposed 

§ 91.326(a) to § 91.326(c). Specifically, 

§ 91.326(c)(1) (proposed as § 91.326(a)) 

will set forth the circumstances under 

which an authorized instructor, 

registered owner, lessor, or lessee would 

be permitted to operate an aircraft for 

the purpose of flight training, checking, 

or testing, and in the case of an 

experimental aircraft, for a purpose 

other than that for which the certificate 

was issued.90 Section 91.326(a), as 

adopted in this final rule now specifies 

that, notwithstanding the prohibitions 

in §§ 91.315, 91.319, and 91.325, a 

person may conduct flight training, 

checking, or testing in a limited category 

aircraft, experimental aircraft, or 

primary category aircraft under the 

provisions of § 91.326 (i.e., providing a 

generalized applicability paragraph 

within the section). 

5. Uncompensated Flight Instructor 

Providing Training and Aircraft 

EAA commented that the language in 

the NDAA could unintentionally 

preclude a completely uncompensated 

operation where the flight instructor is 

providing both the training and the 

aircraft. An example of such an 

operation could be a parent who is a 

flight instructor providing training to 

their child in their own aircraft without 

compensation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80332 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

91See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 11, Sec. 1, 

Use of Aircraft Issued Experimental Certificates in 

Flight Training for Compensation or Hire, dated 5/ 

24/2011, which states, ‘‘Flight instructors may 

receive compensation for providing flight training 

in an experimental aircraft, but may not receive 

compensation for the use of the aircraft in which 

they provide that flight training unless in 

accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) 

and as described in paragraph 3–293.’’ 

92The FAA notes that while the language in the 

NDAA did not explicitly speak to this fully 

uncompensated scenario, the legislation does not 

restrict uncompensated operations where the flight 

instructor is providing both the training and the 

aircraft. Rather, the legislation provides one set of 

conditions as not requiring a LODA, but not all of 

the possible conditions that the FAA may 

determine could be safely facilitated without 

requiring a LODA. 

93To note, given the redesignation from proposed 

paragraph (c) to paragraph (d). the citation for the 

exception in paragraph (b) is also revised to 

paragraph (d). 

The FAA agrees with the EAA’s 

comment and modifies § 91.326 in 

response. Historically, the FAA has 

enabled flight training in experimental 

aircraft without a LODA only when no 

compensation was provided for the use 

of the aircraft.91 In keeping with this 

concept,92 this final rule reorganizes 

§ 91.326 and adds paragraph (c)(2) to 

facilitate completely uncompensated 

operations. The new paragraph will 

provide that a person may conduct 

flight training, checking, or testing in a 

limited category aircraft, experimental 

aircraft, or primary category aircraft 

without a LODA, provided that there is 

no compensation exchanged for that 

training, checking, or testing, or for the 

use of the aircraft. This language will 

permit a flight instructor to provide both 

flight training, checking, or testing and 

the aircraft without a LODA while 

simultaneously prohibiting any 

operation for compensation or hire. 

6. Flight Instructors Training Pilots To 

Maintain or Improve Skills 

The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) 

commented that the language in 

proposed § 91.326(a) (now § 91.326(c)) 

does not mirror the language in 

proposed § 61.193(a)(7), which 

authorizes flight instructors to train 

pilots to maintain or improve skills. SSF 

expressed concern that, without this 

specific language in § 91.326(a) (now 

§ 91.326(c)), this type of training might 

not be authorized. 

The FAA notes that ‘‘flight training’’ 

is defined in § 61.1 as training, other 

than ground training, received from an 

authorized instructor in flight in an 

aircraft. Section 61.1 also defines 

‘‘authorized instructor’’ as, in pertinent 

part, a person who holds a flight 

instructor certificate issued under part 

61 and is in compliance with § 61.197 

when conducting ground training or 

flight training in accordance with the 

privileges and limitations of his or her 

flight instructor certificate. Sections 

61.193 and 61.413 contain a list of flight 

instructor and sport pilot flight 

instructor privileges, respectively. 

Therefore, anything on those lists would 

be considered ‘‘flight training’’ and 

would be available under § 91.326 in 

accordance with the limitations 

specified. 

SSF also expressed concern regarding 

use of certain gliders under the 

provisions of § 91.326(a) (now 

§ 91.326(c)). SSF argued that certain 

gliders, while not certificated under 

FAA standard airworthiness 

certification standards, comply with 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) standards. SSF asserted that, for 

this reason, no LODA should be 

required to operate these aircraft where 

there is no exchange of compensation. 

While EASA certification standards are 

rigorous, until an aircraft has 

demonstrated compliance with FAA 

standard airworthiness certification 

standards through the certification 

process, the intended operation will 

continue to require compliance with 

experimental aircraft operating 

regulations. In the case of the 

aforementioned gliders, that 

certification will be an experimental 

airworthiness certificate issued in 

accordance with § 21.191. The FAA has 

always required either a LODA or 

exemption to operate experimental 

aircraft carrying persons or property for 

compensation or hire. The final rule 

does not change this long-standing 

requirement. Where there is no 

exchange of compensation (e.g., where a 

parent who is a flight instructor 

provides flight training to their child in 

their own aircraft), no LODA is 

required, as explained in further detail 

in the FAA’s explanation of 

§ 91.326(c)(2). 

Finally, SSF suggested to change the 

language in § 91.326(a) (now § 91.326(c)) 

from ‘‘aircraft’’ to ‘‘airplane.’’ The FAA 

notes that this would not create SSF’s 

desired effect of excluding gliders from 

this part of the rule so that they may 

offer flight training, checking, or testing 

without restriction. Section 91.326(a) 

(now § 91.326(c)) was derived from 

legislation, and, therefore, the FAA 

cannot modify it without additional 

Congressional direction. Section 91.326 

was reorganized for the final rule, which 

moved the legislative language from 

§ 91.326(a) to § 91.326(c)(1). Section 

91.326(c)(1) is a permissive regulation 

rather than a prohibitive one in that it 

enables operators of experimental 

aircraft to conduct flight training, 

checking, and testing without a LODA 

in certain circumstances. Changing 

‘‘aircraft’’ to ‘‘airplane’’ would 

effectively exclude gliders from the 

ability to operate without a LODA, 

thereby requiring a LODA for all such 

operations in accordance with 

§§ 91.319(a) and 91.326(b). Therefore, 

this final rule does not implement SSF’s 

recommended revision. 

7. Letters of Deviation Authority 

Previously Issued Under § 91.319 and 

Previously Issued Flight Training 

Exemptions From § 91.315 

As previously stated, the FAA 

proposed § 91.326(c) to address all 

currently issued LODAs. Because of the 

revisions to § 91.326 discussed in the 

previous sections of this preamble, this 

final rule redesignates the sunset 

provision for all existing LODAs 

previously issued under § 91.319. 

Specifically, § 91.326(d)(1) will permit 

the deviation holder to continue to 

operate under the LODA for 24 months 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

Therefore, pursuant to § 91.326(d)(4), all 

LODAs terminate 24 months after the 

effective date of the final rule. Holders 

of terminated LODAs must ensure that 

they are either in compliance with 

§ 91.326(c) for operations not requiring 

a LODA or apply for a new LODA under 

§ 91.326(b). Proposed § 91.326(c)(2) and 

(3) remain substantively unchanged but 

are adopted as § 91.326(d)(2) and (3).93

The FAA notes that it also intends to 

sunset all currently active flight training 

exemptions from § 91.315. The holders 

of these exemptions do not need to take 

action until the exemption expires. 

Upon expiration, exemption holders 

must ensure that they are either in 

compliance with § 91.326(c) for 

operations not requiring a LODA or 

apply for a LODA under § 91.326(b). 

Exemptions issued for Living History 

Flight Experiences will not be affected 

by this final rule. 

I. Miscellaneous Issues in Part 91 

1. Advisory Circular Example is 

Limiting 

EAA expressed a concern over an 

example used in the LODA AC related 

to sport pilot training. The draft AC 

stated that, while training toward a pilot 

certificate will generally be prohibited 

under a LODA because of the wide 

availability of standard category aircraft 

for that purpose, the FAA would enable 

training toward a sport pilot certificate 

in certain very light aircraft. 

Specifically, this training would be 

available in low mass, high drag aircraft 

with an empty weight less than 650 

pounds and a maximum speed in level 

flight with maximum continuous power 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80333 

94Legal Interpretation to William Grannis (Aug. 3, 

2017). 

95 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, subpart i of part A, 

section 40113, Administrative, and subpart iii, 

section 44701, General Requirements; section 

44702, Issuance of Certificates; section 44703, 

Airman Certificates; section 44704, Type 

Certificates, Production Certificates, Airworthiness 

Certificates, and Design and Production 

Organization Certificates; section 44705, Air Carrier 

Operating Certificates; and section 44707, 

Examination and Rating of Air Agencies. 

(VH) less than 87 Knots Calibrated 

Airspeed (KCAS). The draft AC 

provided a parenthetical example of 

such aircraft, which included two-seat 

powered parachutes and weight shift 

control aircraft. 

EAA interpreted the parenthetical 

example to be limited to non-fixed wing 

aircraft, however this was not the FAA’s 

intent. Any aircraft meeting that 

description may be utilized. EAA 

recommended deleting the parenthetical 

examples. The FAA agrees with this 

suggestion and has modified the AC 

accordingly. 

2. Shift of Authorization Authority 

From FAA Headquarters to Field Offices 

The proposed changes to § 91.315 

enable stakeholders to seek a LODA for 

flight training, checking, and testing in 

limited category aircraft, rather than 

seeking an exemption, as previously 

required. EAA expressed concern that 

this new ‘‘decentralized’’ process moves 

approval from FAA Headquarters to 

field offices where personnel may not 

have the expertise necessary to evaluate 

these unique aircraft and operations. 

EAA requested that a national resource 

be made available for Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) staff and 

applicants to rely upon when processing 

these new LODAs. 

The FAA agrees that having subject 

matter experts available to answer FSDO 

questions is important and, as such, 

provides field offices with an avenue to 

reach out to subject matter experts in 

the General Aviation and Commercial 

Division for all general aviation 

operations questions. Although EAA 

requested that these subject matter 

experts be made available to applicants 

as well, the local FSDO should be the 

first line of inquiry for the regulated 

community. If a FSDO does not have the 

necessary information, they will 

coordinate with the appropriate division 

within Flight Standards Service, Office 

of Safety Standards (formerly known as 

‘‘headquarters’’) to ascertain the 

necessary information from a subject 

matter expert. 

3. Stallion 51–LODA Requirement 

Based on Aircraft Size 

Stallion 51 generally supported the 

intent of the rulemaking but 

recommended revisions to simplify the 

approach to limited and experimental 

aircraft operations. Specifically, Stallion 

51 proposed to retain the exemption 

process for § 91.315 and the LODA 

process for experimental aircraft but to 

use weight, speed, and turbine to define 

the permitted flight training operation. 

Specifically, Stallion 51 provided the 

example, ‘‘limited category aircraft in 

excess of 6000 pounds and/or VNE

greater than 250 knots will require an 

exemption to conduct flight training.’’ 

The FAA will not adopt this proposed 

change. Notably, several commenters 

supported the movement away from 

exemptions. For example, EAA and 

WOA stated that the LODA process for 

authorizing for-hire type-specific 

training is preferable to exemptions and 

noted that the bifurcation between 

LODAs and exemptions is unnecessary 

for aircraft with experimental 

certificates. 

The LODA process was designed to 

benefit the public, as it removes the 

barrier of requiring a petition for 

exemption, which is a much lengthier, 

more burdensome process for both the 

FAA and the regulated community that 

does not always result in a grant of 

exemption due to part 11 requirements 

that an individual flight training 

provider may find difficult to establish 

(i.e., a public interest argument). The 

LODA process allows the FAA to 

provide individualized review and 

analysis to each aircraft rather than 

requiring an aircraft to have a single 

weight, size, or speed. For these reasons, 

the FAA has determined that allowing 

limited category aircraft of all sizes, 

weights, and speeds to utilize the LODA 

process, rather than seek exemption, is 

in the public interest and does not 

adversely impact safety. 

4. Section 119.1(e)(1) and (3) Comment 

AOPA requested clarity in a comment 

regarding the proposed changes to 

§§ 91.315, 91.319, and 91.325. These 

sections contain similar prohibitions 

against the carriage of persons or 

property for compensation or hire in 

operations listed under § 119.1(e), 

which includes ‘‘student instruction’’ 

and ‘‘training flights.’’ AOPA asserted 

that the use of the term ‘‘flight training’’ 

in § 91.326 does not offer the relief 

intended by the rulemaking because the 

proposals categorically exclude 

‘‘student instruction’’ and ‘‘training 

flights’’ in limited, experimental, and 

primary category aircraft but would 

allow flight training, checking, or 

testing. As such, AOPA recommended a 

revision of §§ 91.326 and 119.1(e) to 

reflect more consistent nomenclature 

(i.e., flight training rather than training 

flights). 

The FAA previously clarified the 

relationship between the terms ‘‘flight 

training,’’ ‘‘student instruction,’’ and 

‘‘training flights’’ as used in § 119.1(e) in 

a legal interpretation to William 

Grannis.94 As explained in the legal 

interpretation, when a flight involves 

the carriage of persons or property for 

compensation or hire, the operator must 

hold a part 119 air carrier or commercial 

operator certificate and operate such 

flights under part 121 or 135 rules. 

Section 119.1(e) excepts several types of 

operations involving the use of aircraft 

for compensation or hire, including 

student instruction and training flights. 

These operations may be conducted 

without a part 119 certificate under part 

91 rules. The Grannis interpretation 

accurately explained the terms ‘‘student 

instruction’’ and ‘‘training flights.’’ 

Specifically, ‘‘training flights’’ refer to 

operations in which a person receives 

training for the purpose of satisfying a 

training requirement outside of part 61, 

such as crewmember training required 

by § 91.313. Further, ‘‘student 

instruction’’ broadly refers to an 

operation in which a person receives 

flight training from an authorized 

instructor (as defined in part 61). 

The FAA finds that revising the terms 

‘‘student instruction’’ and ‘‘training 

flights’’ in § 119.1(e)(1) and (3) would 

necessitate further changes to the 

regulations outside of the scope of this 

rulemaking. Furthermore, the FAA finds 

that the Grannis interpretation 

accurately clarifies that the term 

‘‘student instruction’’ is used to describe 

part 61 flight training. Therefore, the 

FAA will not revise § 119.1(e)(1) and (3) 

at this time. 

J. Severability 

As discussed in section II, Congress 

authorized the FAA by statute to 

promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air 

commerce by prescribing, among other 

things, regulations and minimum 

standards for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce.95

Additionally, this final rule implements 

certain provisions of Public Law 115– 

254, the 2023 NDAA, and the 2024 FAA 

Reauthorization Act. Consistent with 

these mandates, the FAA promulgates 

the regulations described herein to (i) 

allow pilots conducting PAO to credit 

their flight time towards civil regulatory 

requirements; (ii) amend the operating 

rules for limited, experimental, and 

primary category aircraft to permit 

certain flight training, testing, and 

checking in these aircraft without a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80334 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

LODA; and (iii) complete miscellaneous 

amendments related to flight 

experience, flight instructor privileges, 

flight training in certain aircraft holding 

special airworthiness certificates, and 

the related prohibitions on conducting 

these activities for compensation or 

hire. However, the FAA recognized that 

certain provisions of this final rule 

approach operations and airman 

certification in unique ways due to the 

different regulatory frameworks 

provided by parts 61 and 91. Therefore, 

the FAA finds that the various 

provisions of this final rule are 

severable and able to operate 

functionally if severed from each other. 

In the event a court were to invalidate 

one or more of this final rule’s unique 

provisions, the remaining provisions 

should stand, thus allowing the FAA to 

proceed with revising the herein 

referenced regulations within its 

Congressionally authorized role of 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider impacts of 

regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866, Executive Order 13563, and 

Executive Order 14094 (‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review’’) direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify the costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. Fourth, 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies 

to prepare a written assessment of the 

costs, benefits, and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. The current threshold after 

adjustment for inflation is $183 million 

using the most current (2023) Implicit 

Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 

Product. This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this rule: will result 

in benefits that justify costs; is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, as amended; will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; 

will not create unnecessary obstacles to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States; and will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or Tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

1. Summary 

The FAA analyzed the costs and 

benefits for the provisions related to 

PAO and the provisions related to 

training, testing, and checking in certain 

aircraft with special airworthiness 

certificates separately. The provisions 

related to PAO impose no new costs, 

and the FAA expects the rule will 

reduce the costs for pilots conducting 

PAO to maintain their civil certificates 

and ratings. As calculated in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, the 

provisions related to training, testing, 

and checking impose approximately 

$100,000 in total cumulative one-time 

costs (undiscounted) over a period of 

two years to current LODA holders and 

the FAA. Roughly half of these costs 

stem from the requirement for the 

current approximately 180 LODA 

holders who broadly offer certain 

aircraft with special airworthiness 

certificates for training to reapply 

within two years of the effective date of 

the final rule. The other half of the costs 

include the time costs incurred by the 

FAA in processing these applications 

over the first two years. However, the 

FAA expects the cost savings from the 

streamlined regulatory framework, and 

the safety benefits from greater access to 

specialized training in aircraft with 

certain special airworthiness 

certificates, to exceed the paperwork 

costs. Overall, the FAA concluded that 

this rule will maintain and promote 

safety with minimal costs. Because the 

FAA did not receive any public 

comments related to the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis in the NPRM and 

because the FAA made only minimal 

changes with no discernable economic 

impact to the final rule relative to the 

NPRM, the FAA presents the economic 

analysis from the NPRM in this final 

rule. 

2. Logging Flight Time in Public Aircraft 

Operations 

The FAA requires pilots to log flight 

time used to meet training, aeronautical 

experience, and recent flight experience 

requirements for civil pilot certificates 

and ratings. Currently, logging of flight 

time in aircraft used for PAO is limited 

to official law enforcement flights. The 

rule extends logging pilot flight time in 

PAO not only to forestry and fire 

protection services, as directed by 

section 517 of the FAA Reauthorization 

Act of 2018 but also to any PAO, 

including operations involving national 

defense, intelligence missions, search 

and rescue, aeronautical research and 

biological or geological resource 

management. The FAA expects the rule 

to lower the cost for pilots conducting 

PAO to maintain their civil certificates 

and ratings. Although pilots conduct 

PAO outside of FAA civil certification 

and certain safety oversight regulations, 

each government entity (e.g., State 

governments) may maintain its own 

certification system and requirements 

for pilots. For many government 

entities, this includes adopting the same 

standards as those codified in 14 CFR to 

ensure safety and comply with liability 

insurance requirements. 

Allowing pilots to credit their PAO 

flight time enables PAO pilots to meet 

FAA flight experience and recency 

requirements in the course of their 

duties, thereby avoiding costs required 

to accrue flight time and recent 

experience in civil aircraft operations. 

These avoided costs could include 

avoided travel time, flight time, fuel 

costs, and costs for use of a civil aircraft. 

Additionally, the FAA finds that 

recording PAO flight time will not 

impose additional costs because PAO 

pilots already record their flight time to 

meet the safety and insurance 

requirements of their employers. For 

this reason, the FAA will allow pilots to 

retroactively credit PAO flight time. The 

FAA concludes that the PAO provisions 

of the rule will not adversely affect 

safety, impose any additional costs, or 

raise legal or policy issues for which 

centralized review would meaningfully 

further the President’s priorities or the 

principles set forth in Executive Order 

12866 as amended by Executive Order 

14094. 

3. Flight Training, Testing, or Checking 

for Compensation in Certain Aircraft 

With Special Airworthiness Certificates 

Consistent with the 2023 NDAA, the 

rule allows owners or operators of 

experimental aircraft to receive training, 

testing, and checking in their aircraft 

without a LODA in certain 

circumstances. The rule extends the 

provision to training, testing, and 

checking in limited category and 

primary category aircraft. Additionally, 

the rule moves the current LODA 

process for experimental aircraft in 

§ 91.319(h) to § 91.326(b) and extends 

the LODA process to include limited 

category and experimental light sport 

aircraft. The goal is to promote safety by 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80335 

making it simpler for pilots to receive 

elective or specialized training relevant 

to aircraft they regularly fly while also 

ensuring effective training and 

maintenance standards in certain 

aircraft with special airworthiness 

certificates broadly offered for training, 

checking, or testing, for compensation. 

Overall, the FAA expects the training 

provision to increase safety, clarify and 

simplify regulatory requirements, 

reduce compliance costs for operators, 

administrative costs for the FAA, and 

time and travel costs for pilots seeking 

elective or specialized training, testing, 

or checking. The FAA evaluated costs 

and benefits against the baseline 

established by the ‘‘Notification of 

Policy for Flight Training in Certain 

Aircraft,’’ published in the Federal 

Register July 12, 2021, as well as the 

recently passed 2023 NDAA, and 

concluded the cost impacts are modest 

and the rule does not raise legal or 

policy issues for which centralized 

review would meaningfully further the 

President’s priorities or the principles 

set forth in Executive Order 12866 as 

amended by Executive Order 14094. 

4. Cost Savings 

The FAA expects the rule to generate 

cost savings for owners or operators of 

certain aircraft with special 

airworthiness certificates who seek 

specialized training, testing, or checking 

in aircraft they own or regularly operate. 

Under current rules, owners or 

operators of limited and primary 

category aircraft must petition the FAA 

for an exemption. The recently passed 

2023 NDAA eliminated the LODA 

requirement for owners and operators of 

experimental aircraft receiving training 

in their own aircraft. The rule codifies 

the legislation with regard to LODAs for 

experimental aircraft and eliminates the 

LODA requirement for owners and 

operators who receive training, testing, 

or checking in their aircraft and pay 

compensation for instruction. The 

elimination of the exemption 

requirements will result in time savings 

for owners and operators who will no 

longer need to apply for an exemption. 

Likewise, the rule reduces the 

administrative costs at the FAA 

associated with evaluating and tracking 

exemption petitions. 

5. Costs and Cost Savings for Operations 

Broadly Offered or Advertised 

Under the rule, if an operator of 

experimental or limited category aircraft 

broadly offers or advertises flight 

training, checking, and testing in these 

aircraft, the operator must obtain prior 

approval from the FAA in the form of 

a LODA. To obtain a LODA, the operator 

must submit an application to the FAA 

that includes an aircraft-specific 

training program at least 60 days in 

advance of training operations. Under 

the rule, operators of certain primary 

category aircraft will not require a 

LODA and will no longer need to 

petition for an exemption to conduct 

training, testing, or checking. 

Importantly, the new LODA 

requirements under § 91.326(b) are 

similar to the current LODA 

requirements under § 91.319(h) for 

operators of certain experimental 

aircraft who broadly offer their aircraft 

for training, testing, or checking. The 

FAA is also terminating current training 

LODAs within two years of the effective 

date of this final rule. However, to 

ensure that all operations in which an 

aircraft with a special airworthiness 

certificate is ‘‘held out’’ for training, 

testing, or checking comply with the 

requirements, holders of current 

exemptions and LODAs permitting 

these training operations will need to 

apply for a LODA. The FAA requires 

that these exemption and LODA holders 

reapply within two years of the effective 

date of this final rule. 

The FAA finds that the costs of the 

LODA requirement for training 

operations in experimental and limited 

category aircraft ‘‘held out’’ broadly for 

training will be small relative to the 

current regulatory baseline. The costs 

and cost savings will vary across groups 

affected by the regulation. Therefore, the 

FAA evaluated the costs separately for 

each of the identifiable interest groups 

expected to realize costs or savings. 

Experimental aircraft operators who 

currently hold LODAs under § 91.319(h) 

to offer their aircraft broadly for training 

will incur the cost of reapplying for 

their LODA within two years of the 

effective date of this final rule. The FAA 

estimates the reapplication requirement 

would generate approximately $100,000 

in total undiscounted costs within the 

first two years following the effective 

date of this final rule. As shown in the 

PRA section of this preamble, this 

estimate includes the time costs to the 

approximately 180 current LODA 

holders who reapply and the FAA, 

which must process these applications. 

Under current guidance, LODA 

applicants already submit most of the 

requirements related to training plans, 

instructor qualifications, maintenance, 

airworthiness, and recordkeeping in 

order to successfully obtain and 

maintain a LODA. For the most part, the 

cost of reapplying will consist of the 

time to gather the relevant information 

and submit the new application. Current 

LODA holders who reapply successfully 

will gain the benefit of broadly offering 

their aircraft for flight testing and 

checking. Current LODAs only allow 

operators to broadly offer or advertise 

their aircraft for flight training and do 

not permit checking or testing. 

Similarly, the FAA expects minimal 

costs for operators of limited category 

aircraft with exemptions to apply for a 

LODA prior to expiration of their 

exemptions. Currently, there are fewer 

than five active training exemptions for 

limited category aircraft. Moreover, 

these exemptions normally only have a 

duration of two years, and the FAA 

expects most exemption holders to 

already meet most of the LODA 

requirements outlined in the 

accompanying LODA Advisory Circular. 

The cost will consist of the time to 

gather the required information and 

submit a new LODA application. 

For future LODA applicants who seek 

to broadly offer their experimental or 

limited category aircraft for training, 

testing, or checking, the rule is expected 

to lower compliance costs. Although the 

final rule LODA requirements are 

similar to current requirements for 

operators who broadly offer aircraft 

holding certain special airworthiness 

certificates for training, the simplified 

regulatory structure and guidance in the 

accompanying advisory circular are 

expected to make it easier for potential 

applicants to understand requirements 

and submit a successful application. 

Overall, the FAA does not expect this 

final rule to significantly increase 

administrative costs at the FAA. The 

FAA will incur costs within the first 

two years of this final rule’s effective 

date to process LODA applications from 

the small subset of current holders of 

LODAs or exemptions required to 

reapply under this final rule. However, 

in the long run, the streamlined 

regulatory structure and guidance will 

reduce the amount of time the FAA 

must spend obtaining additional 

information from applicants and 

evaluating applications. 

Finally, the clarification and 

simplification of the LODA process for 

operators of aircraft with certain special 

airworthiness certificates who advertise 

or broadly offer their aircraft for training 

might ultimately lower travel costs for 

pilots seeking certain types of 

supplemental and specialized training. 

If more operators successfully apply for 

LODAs to broadly offer specialized 

training, pilots interested in receiving 

this optional specialized training might 

not have to travel as far to receive it. For 

example, the FAA recognizes that 

training in an ELSA is beneficial for 

pilots to gain familiarity with the 

performance and handling qualities of 

other light-sport aircraft and ultralights. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80336 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

96See Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the 

Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft, 69 FR 44771 (Jul. 

27, 2004). In the final rule, the FAA amended 

§ 91.319 by adding § 91.319(h) to allow deviation 

authority from the provisions of § 91.319(a) for the 

purpose of conducting flight training. 

97See Clearance of Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: General Operating and 

Flight Rules FAR 91 and FAR 107 (Feb. 14, 2022), 

87 FR 8335. 

Currently, there are some two-seat 

aircraft that perform and handle 

similarly to an ultralight, certificated as 

Special Light-Sport Aircraft (SLSA) 

available to conduct training but not 

available in sufficient numbers for 

widespread availability. Under the rule, 

the availability of ELSA for training 

through LODAs might enable pilots of 

other light-sport aircraft and ultralights 

to receive optional training without 

traveling as far, consequently reducing 

fuel costs incurred from travel as well 

as the time cost of travel. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121) and the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240), requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of the regulatory action on small 

business and other small entities and to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

As described in the Regulatory 

Evaluation and the Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis in the NPRM, the 

FAA expects the rule to have minimal 

economic impact on small entities. The 

FAA did not receive any public 

comments related to this determination. 

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) 

of the RFA and based on the foregoing, 

the head of FAA certifies that this 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and determined 

that the final rule responds to a 

domestic safety objective. The FAA has 

determined that this final rule is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs 

the issuance of Federal regulations that 

require unfunded mandates. An 

unfunded mandate is a regulation that 

requires a State, local, or Tribal 

government or the private sector to 

incur direct costs without the Federal 

Government having first provided the 

funds to pay those costs. The FAA 

determined that this final rule will not 

result in the expenditure of $183 

million or more by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector, in any one year. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

The FAA has requested OMB 

approval for a new one-time information 

collection, titled ‘‘One Time ReApplication for Letter of Deviation 

Authority (LODA) for Experimental 

Aircraft Broadly Offered for Training, 

Testing or Checking Under Part 91,’’ 

associated with this rule. The FAA 

notes that when the FAA submitted this 

information collection associated with 

the NPRM to OMB for its review, OMB 

assigned control number 2120–0819. 

The FAA has submitted information 

collection 2120–0816 to OMB for final 

approval to allow the FAA to collect 

this information. 

Summary: This final rule creates 

§ 91.326(b), which establishes unified 

requirements for operators who broadly 

offer certain aircraft with special 

airworthiness certificates for flight 

training, testing, or checking to obtain 

prior approval from the FAA in the form 

of a LODA. Through the LODA process, 

the FAA provides oversight of operators 

who advertise or broadly offer certain 

aircraft with special airworthiness 

certificates for elective and specialized 

flight training, testing, and checking. 

The FAA expects that § 91.326(b) and 

the advisory circular accompanying this 

final rule will ensure consistency and 

clarify the application process, thereby 

making it easier for potential applicants 

to understand requirements and submit 

a successful application. 

Prior to this final rule, § 91.319(h) 

permitted operators of certain 

experimental aircraft to apply for 

LODAs permitting them to advertise or 

broadly offer their aircraft for flight 

training, testing, or checking in 

exchange for compensation that 

included use of the aircraft. The FAA 

notes that when it created the LODA 

framework under § 91.319(h), it did not 

initially submit an information 

collection.96 Therefore, the FAA 

published a separate notice to revise 

OMB Control Number 2120–0005 for 

information collection related to 

previous LODA applications under 

§ 91.319(h) for flight training, testing, 

and checking in certain experimental 

aircraft prior to this final rule.97

This final rule terminates all LODAs 

issued under § 91.319(h) for training 

operations for compensation in 

experimental aircraft within two years 

of the effective date of this final rule. 

Exemptions issued for flight training in 

limited and primary category aircraft 

will not be renewed. Exemptions issued 

for Living History Flight Experiences 

will not be affected by this final rule. 

The FAA expects operators of 

experimental or limited category aircraft 

with active LODAs or exemptions, 

respectively, who broadly offer their 

aircraft for training to apply for a LODA 

under § 91.326(b) within this time 

period. Previously, the FAA issued 

LODAs without expiration dates for 

eligible operators who broadly offer 

their aircraft for training. The FAA will 

terminate those LODAs to ensure that 

all operators comply with the final rule 

requirements. The burden analysis in 

this final rule only applies to holders of 

active LODAs who must reapply within 

two years of the effective date of this 

final rule, OMB Control Number 2120– 

0819. 

Public Comments: The FAA did not 

receive any comments on the 

information collection requirement. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80337 

Use: The FAA will use the 

information provided by LODA 

applicants to promote safety for 

specialized flight training, testing, or 

checking offered to the public in 

experimental and limited category 

aircraft. The LODA framework enables 

the FAA to provide oversight to ensure 

effective training and maintenance of 

the aircraft. 

Respondents (including number of): 

There are approximately 180 active 

LODA holders for operations under 14 

CFR 91.319 that the FAA expects to 

reapply. 

Frequency: One time per applicant. 

The proposed LODAs do not have an 

expiration period. 

Annual Burden Estimate: For current 

LODA holders who reapply within the 

first two years of the effective date of 

this final rule, the FAA estimates a onetime burden of four hours per applicant. 

The FAA expects the applicant to keep 

the required information as a condition 

of the current LODA, so the burden of 

reapplying will consist of the time to 

gather the required information and 

resubmit. Current LODA holders are 

already required to meet the 

recordkeeping and other proposed 

requirements. Therefore, this final rule 

creates no new annual burden for 

current LODA holders who reapply. The 

LODAs do not have an expiration date, 

so there will be no renewal costs. The 

FAA assumes the burden hours per 

application for the FAA to process 

applications from current LODA holders 

who reapply will be four hours. 

Table 1 presents the annual burden 

hours and undiscounted costs for the 

approximately 180 current LODA 

holders required to reapply within the 

first two years of the effective date of 

this final rule. Table 2 presents the 

burden estimate and costs for the 

Federal Government to process these 

LODA applications. The total 

undiscounted cost of burden hours for 

applicants and the FAA combined is 

estimated to be $102,642 over two years. 

Total discounted (at 7 percent) cost of 

burden hours is estimated to be $91,743 

over two years. Total annualized costs at 

a 7 percent discount rate are $47,423. 

TABLE 1—TOTAL BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS FOR CURRENT LODA HOLDERS WHO MUST REAPPLY

Year 

Number of LODA 

applications 

from current 

LODA holders 1

Hours per 

application 

current LODA 

holders 

Total burden 

hours 

Total cost for 

applicants 

undiscounted 2

1 ............................................................................................... 60 4 240 $15,181 

2 ............................................................................................... 120 4 480 30,362 

Total .................................................................................. .............................. .............................. 720 45,543 

Mean ................................................................................. .............................. .............................. 360 22,772 

LODA = Letter of Deviation Authority. 

1The FAA assumes that approximately one-third of current LODA holders will reapply the first year after the effective date of a final rule, and 

the remaining LODA holders will reapply in the second year. 2 Undiscounted applicant cost calculated as burden hours times average labor rate including benefits. The FAA used an average wage, including benefits of $63.25, which is the average wage of flight instructors ($43.14) divided by the percent of total employer costs of employee compensation represented by wages (68.2%) to account for benefits (31.8%). Flight instructor wages are the Bureau of Labor Statistics wage estimate for commercial pilots employed at technical and trade schools. Accessed April 12, 2022, www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes532012.htm. 

TABLE 2—TOTAL BURDEN HOURS AND COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROCESS APPLICATIONS FROM CURRENT

LODA HOLDERS WHO MUST REAPPLY

Year 

Number of LODA 

applications 

from current 

LODA holders 1

Hours per 

application FAA 

Total burden 

hours FAA 

FAA cost 

undiscounted 2

1 ............................................................................................... 60 4 240 $19,033 

2 ............................................................................................... 120 4 480 38,066 

Total .................................................................................. 180 .............................. 720 57,098 

Mean ................................................................................. 90 .............................. 360 28,549 

LODA=Letter of Deviation Authority. 

1 The FAA assumes that approximately one-third of current LODA holders will reapply the first year after the effective date of this final rule, 

and the remaining LODA holders will reapply in the second year. 2 Undiscounted applicant cost calculated as burden hours times average labor rate including benefits. The FAA used an average wage including benefits of $79.30, which is the wage of FG–13 Step 5 FAA aviation safety inspectors ($58.20) in the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington Metro 

Area in 2022 plus benefits (36.25% of wages). 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified the following 

differences with these regulations. The 

FAA notes that under the final rule 

§ 61.51(f)(4), pilots designated by a 

government entity as an SIC may log SIC 

time during authorized PAO with 

certain limitations. The FAA 

determined that this provision is 

inconsistent with the ICAO standard for 

logging. Accordingly, all pilots who log 

flight time under this provision and 

apply for an ATP certificate will have a 

limitation on the certificate indicating 

that the pilot does not meet the PIC 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

ICAO. This limitation may be removed 

when the pilot presents satisfactory 

evidence that he or she has met the 

ICAO standards. 

The FAA intends to file a difference 

with ICAO. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80338 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

98 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

99FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), 

available at www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ 

1210.pdf. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this final rule 

qualifies for the categorical exclusion 

identified in paragraph 5–6.6f and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 

Federalism. The FAA has determined 

that this action will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, or 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

will not have federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,98 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,99 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to have substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

Tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes; or to 

affect uniquely or significantly their 

respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA 

has not identified any unique or 

significant effects, environmental or 

otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this 

final rule. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(May 18, 2001). The FAA has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under the executive 

order and is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609 and has determined that 

this action will have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of the NPRM, all comments 

received, this final rule, and all 

background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

docket number listed above. A copy of 

this final rule will be placed in the 

docket. Electronic retrieval help and 

guidelines are available on the website. 

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days each year. An electronic copy of 

this document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at www.federalregister.gov and 

the Government Publishing Office’s 

website at www.govinfo.gov. A copy 

may also be found on the FAA’s 

Regulations and Policies website at 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this final rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed in the 

electronic docket for this rulemaking. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

14 CFR Part 11 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Flight instruction, Recreation and 

recreation areas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures, Teachers. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Agriculture, Air carriers, Air taxis, Air 

traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Airports, Aviation safety, Charter 

flights, Freight, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures, Transportation. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.1 by revising paragraph 

(1)(ii) of the definition of ‘‘Public 

aircraft’’ to read as follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Public aircraft * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) For the sole purpose of 

determining public aircraft status, 

governmental function means an 

activity undertaken by a government, 

such as national defense, intelligence 

missions, firefighting, search and 

rescue, law enforcement (including 

transport of prisoners, detainees, and 

illegal aliens), aeronautical research, 

biological or geological resource 

management (including data collection 

on civil aviation systems undergoing 

research, development, test, or 

evaluation at a test range (as such term 

is defined in 49 U.S.C. 44801)), 

infrastructure inspections, or any other 

activity undertaken by a governmental 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80339 

entity that the Administrator determines 

is inherently governmental. 

* * * * * 

PART 11—GENERAL RULEMAKING 

PROCEDURES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 11 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40103, 

40105, 40109, 40113, 44110, 44502, 44701– 

44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 50901– 

50923. 

■ 4. Amend § 11.201 in the table in 

paragraph (b) by revising the entry for 

part 91 to read as follows: 

§ 11.201 Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control numbers assigned under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

14 CFR part or section identified 

and described Current OMB control No. 

*******

Part 91 ............................................. 2120–0005, 2120–0026, 2120–0027, 2120–0573, 2120–0606, 2120–0620, 2120–0631, 2120–0651, 2120– 

0819, 2120–0820. 

* * * * * * * 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 44729, 

44903, 45102–45103, 45301–45302; Sec. 

2307 Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 

U.S.C. 44703 note); and sec. 318, Pub. L. 

115–254, 132 Stat. 3186 (49 U.S.C. 44703 

note). 

■ 6. Amend § 61.1 in paragraph (b) by 

adding the definition of ‘‘Passenger’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Passenger means any person on board 

an aircraft other than a crewmember, 

FAA personnel, manufacturer personnel 

required for type certification, or a 

person receiving or providing flight 

training, checking, or testing as 

authorized by this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 61.51 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (f)(2) and (3); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (f)(4); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (j)(4). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) Holds the appropriate category, 

class, and instrument rating (if a class or 

instrument rating is required for the 

flight) for the aircraft being flown, and 

more than one pilot is required under 

the type certification of the aircraft or 

the regulations under which the flight is 

being conducted; 

(3) Serves as second-in-command in 

operations conducted in accordance 

with § 135.99(c) of this chapter when a 

second pilot is not required under the 

type certification of the aircraft or the 

regulations under which the flight is 

being conducted, provided the 

requirements in § 61.159(c) are satisfied; 

or 

(4) Is designated by a government 

entity as second-in-command when 

operating in accordance with paragraph 

(j)(4) of this section, provided the 

aircraft used is a large aircraft or turbojet powered airplane or holds or 

originally held a type certificate that 

requires a second pilot provided that: 

(i) Second-in-command time logged 

under this paragraph (f)(4) may not be 

used to meet the aeronautical 

experience requirements for the private 

or commercial pilot certificates or an 

instrument rating; and 

(ii) An applicant for an airline 

transport pilot certificate who logs 

second in command time under this 

paragraph (f)(4) in an aircraft that is not 

type certificated for two pilots issued an 

airline transport pilot certificate with 

the limitation ‘‘Holder does not meet the 

pilot in command aeronautical 

experience requirements of ICAO,’’ as 

prescribed under Article 39 of the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation if the applicant does not meet 

the ICAO requirements contained in 

Annex 1 ‘‘Personnel Licensing’’ to the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation. An applicant is entitled to an 

airline transport pilot certificate without 

the ICAO limitation specified under this 

paragraph (f)(4)(ii) when the applicant 

presents satisfactory evidence of having 

met the ICAO requirements and 

otherwise meets the aeronautical 

experience requirements of § 61.159 or 

§ 61.161, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(4) An aircraft used to conduct a 

public aircraft operation under 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 61.57 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and 

(b)(1) introductory text and adding 

paragraphs (e)(5) and (6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in 

command. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, no person may act as 

a pilot in command of an aircraft 

carrying persons or of an aircraft 

certificated for more than one pilot 

flight crewmember unless that person 

has made at least three takeoffs and 

three landings within the preceding 90 

days, and— 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, no person may act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft carrying 

persons during the period beginning 1 

hour after sunset and ending 1 hour 

before sunrise, unless within the 

preceding 90 days that person has made 

at least three takeoffs and three landings 

to a full stop during the period 

beginning 1 hour after sunset and 

ending 1 hour before sunrise, and— 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section do not apply to a person 

receiving flight training from an 

authorized instructor, provided: 

(i) The flight training is limited to the 

purpose of meeting the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section; 

(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

the person receiving flight training 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80340 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

meets all other requirements to act as 

pilot in command of the aircraft; and 

(iii) The authorized instructor and the 

person receiving flight training are the 

sole occupants of the aircraft. 

(6) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section do not apply to the examiner or 

the applicant during a practical test 

required by this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 61.159 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane 

category rating. 

* * * * * 

(e) An applicant who credits time 

under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section and § 61.51(f)(4) is issued an 

airline transport pilot certificate with 

the limitation ‘‘Holder does not meet the 

pilot in command aeronautical 

experience requirements of ICAO,’’ as 

prescribed under Article 39 of the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 61.161 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 61.161 Aeronautical experience: 

Rotorcraft category and helicopter class 

rating. 

* * * * * 

(d) An applicant who credits time 

under paragraph (c) of this section and 

§ 61.51(f)(4) is issued an airline 

transport pilot certificate with the 

limitation ‘‘Holder does not meet the 

pilot in command aeronautical 

experience requirements of ICAO,’’ as 

prescribed under Article 39 of the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 61.193 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text and 

(a)(7) and adding paragraph (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.193 Flight instructor privileges. 

(a) A person who holds a flight 

instructor certificate is authorized 

within the limitations of that person’s 

flight instructor certificate and ratings to 

conduct ground training, flight training, 

certain checking events, and to issue 

endorsements related to: 

* * * * * 

(7) A flight review, operating 

privilege, or recency of experience 

requirement of this part, or training to 

maintain or improve the skills of a 

certificated pilot; 

* * * * * 

(c) The privileges authorized in this 

section do not permit a person who 

holds a flight instructor certificate to 

conduct operations that would 

otherwise require an air carrier or 

operating certificate or specific 

authorization from the Administrator. 

■ 12. Amend § 61.413 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text and 

(a)(6) and adding paragraph (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.413 What are the privileges of my 

flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating? 

(a) If you hold a flight instructor 

certificate with a sport pilot rating, you 

are authorized, within the limits of your 

certificate and rating, to conduct ground 

training, flight training, certain checking 

events, and to issue endorsements 

related to: 

* * * * * 

(6) A flight review or operating 

privilege for a sport pilot, or training to 

maintain or improve the skills of a sport 

pilot; 

* * * * * 

(c) The privileges authorized in this 

section do not permit a person who 

holds a flight instructor certificate with 

a sport pilot rating to conduct 

operations that would otherwise require 

an air carrier or operating certificate or 

specific authorization from the 

Administrator. 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101, 40103, 

40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 

44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 

44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 

46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, 

47534, Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 

U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation 

(61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 14. Revise § 91.315 to read as follows: 

§ 91.315 Limited category civil aircraft: 

Operating limitations. 

Except as provided in § 91.326, no 

person may operate a limited category 

civil aircraft carrying persons or 

property for compensation or hire in 

operations that: 

(a) Require an air carrier or 

commercial operator certificate issued 

under part 119 of this chapter; 

(b) Are listed in § 119.1(e) of this 

chapter; 

(c) Require management 

specifications for a fractional ownership 

program issued in accordance with 

subpart K of this part; or 

(d) Are conducted under part 129, 

133, or 137 of this chapter. 

■ 15. Amend § 91.319 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text, (a)(2), (d)(3), (e), and 

(f); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 91.319 Aircraft having experimental 

certificates: Operating limitations. 

(a) Except as provided in § 91.326, no 

person may operate an aircraft that has 

an experimental certificate— 

* * * * * 

(2) Carrying persons or property for 

compensation or hire in operations that: 

(i) Require an air carrier or 

commercial operator certificate issued 

under part 119 of this chapter; 

(ii) Are listed in § 119.1(e) of this 

chapter; 

(iii) Require management 

specifications for a fractional ownership 

program issued in accordance with 

subpart K of this part; or 

(iv) Are conducted under part 129, 

133, or 137 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Notify air traffic control of the 

experimental nature of the aircraft when 

utilizing air traffic services. 

(e) No person may operate a lightsport aircraft that is issued an 

experimental certificate under § 21.191 

of this chapter for compensation or hire, 

except: 

(1) A person may operate an aircraft 

issued an experimental certificate under 

§ 21.191(i)(1) of this chapter to tow a 

glider that is a light-sport aircraft or 

unpowered ultralight vehicle in 

accordance with § 91.309; or 

(2) A person may operate a light-sport 

aircraft issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191 of this chapter 

to conduct operations authorized under 

§ 91.326. 

(f) No person may lease a light-sport 

aircraft that is issued an experimental 

certificate under § 21.191 of this 

chapter, except— 

(1) In accordance with paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section; or 

(2) To conduct a solo flight in 

accordance with a training program 

included as part of the deviation 

authority specified under § 91.326(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Revise § 91.325 to read as follows: 

§ 91.325 Primary category aircraft: 

Operating limitations. 

(a) Unless provided for in this section, 

no person may operate a primary 

category aircraft carrying persons or 

property for compensation or hire in 

operations that: 

(1) Require an air carrier or 

commercial operator certificate issued 

under part 119 of this chapter; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 80341 

(2) Are listed in § 119.1(e) of this 

chapter; 

(3) Require management 

specifications for a fractional ownership 

program issued in accordance with 

subpart K of this part; or 

(4) Are conducted under part 129, 

133, or 137 of this chapter. 

(b) Except as provided in § 91.326(c), 

no person may operate a primary 

category aircraft that is maintained by 

the pilot-owner under an approved 

special inspection and maintenance 

program except— 

(1) The pilot-owner; or 

(2) A designee of the pilot-owner, 

provided that the pilot-owner does not 

receive compensation for the use of the 

aircraft. 

(c) A primary category aircraft that is 

maintained by an appropriately rated 

mechanic or an authorized certificated 

repair station in accordance with the 

applicable provisions of part 43 of this 

chapter may be used to conduct flight 

training, checking, and testing for 

compensation or hire. 

■ 17. Add § 91.326 to read as follows: 

§ 91.326 Exception to operating certain 

aircraft for the purposes of flight training, 

flightcrew member checking, or flightcrew 

member testing. 

(a) General. Notwithstanding the 

prohibitions in §§ 91.315, 91.319(a), 

and 91.325, a person may conduct flight 

training, checking, or testing in a 

limited category aircraft, experimental 

aircraft, or primary category aircraft 

under the provisions of this section. 

(b) Operations requiring a letter of 

deviation authority. Except as provided 

in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 

no person may conduct flight training, 

checking, or testing in a limited category 

or experimental aircraft without 

deviation authority issued under this 

paragraph (b). 

(1) No person may operate under this 

section without a letter of deviation 

authority (LODA) issued by the 

Administrator. 

(2) The FAA may deny an application 

for a letter of deviation authority if it 

determines the deviation would not be 

in the interest of safety or is 

unnecessary. The FAA may cancel or 

amend a letter of deviation authority if 

it determines that the deviation holder 

has failed to comply with the conditions 

and limitations or at any time if the 

Administrator determines that the 

deviation is no longer necessary or in 

the interest of safety. 

(3) An applicant must submit a 

request for deviation authority in a form 

and manner acceptable to the 

Administrator at least 60 days before the 

date of intended operations. A request 

for deviation authority must contain a 

complete description of the proposed 

operation that establishes a level of 

safety equivalent to that provided under 

the regulations for the deviation 

requested, including: 

(i) A letter identifying the name and 

address of the applicant; 

(ii) The name and contact information 

of the individual with ultimate 

responsibility for operations authorized 

under the deviation authority; 

(iii) Specific aircraft make(s), 

model(s), registration number(s), and 

serial number(s) to be used; 

(iv) Copies of each aircraft’s 

airworthiness certificate, including the 

FAA-issued operating limitations, if 

applicable; 

(v) Ejection seat information, if 

applicable; 

(vi) A detailed training program that 

demonstrates the proposed activities 

will meet the intended training 

objectives; 

(vii) A description of the applicant’s 

process to determine whether a trainee 

has a specific need for formation or 

aerobatic training, or training leading to 

the issuance of an endorsement, if those 

types of training are being requested; 

and 

(viii) Any other information that the 

Administrator deems necessary to 

evaluate the application. 

(4) The holder of a letter of deviation 

authority must comply with any 

conditions and limitations provided in 

that letter of deviation authority. Unless 

otherwise authorized by the 

Administrator, the deviation authority 

will include the following conditions 

and limitations: 

(i) The operator must use the aircraftspecific flight and ground training 

program for the training authorized by 

the letter of deviation authority. 

Demonstration flights, discovery flights, 

experience flights, and other flights not 

related to the training program are not 

authorized. 

(ii) As appropriate to the aircraft being 

flown, all trainees must hold category 

and class ratings; a type rating, 

Authorized Experimental Aircraft 

authorization, or temporary Letter of 

Authorization; and endorsements listed 

in § 61.31 of this chapter, as 

appropriate, with the following 

exceptions: 

(A) Persons receiving gyroplane 

training or training leading to the initial 

issuance of a sport pilot certificate or 

flight instructor certificate with a sport 

pilot rating in a low mass, high drag 

aircraft with an empty weight less than 

650 pounds and a VH ≤87 Knots 

Calibrated Airspeed (KCAS) are not 

required to hold category or class 

ratings. For training leading to an 

endorsement for additional sport pilot 

privileges, the pilot receiving the 

training must hold at least a sport pilot 

certificate with appropriate category and 

class ratings and endorsements issued 

under § 61.31 of this chapter, as 

appropriate. 

(B) Persons with a specific need to 

receive training toward the issuance of 

an endorsement are not required to hold 

the § 61.31 of this chapter endorsement 

sought. Any endorsements being 

provided must be authorized in the 

LODA. 

(C) Persons receiving jet unusual 

attitude and upset recovery training, 

limited category type rating training, or 

authorized experimental aircraft 

authorization training, if required for 

the type of aircraft being flown, are not 

required to hold the applicable type 

rating, authorized experimental 

authorization rating, or a temporary 

Letter of Authorization prior to the 

commencement of training. 

(D) For ultralight-style training, the 

person receiving training is not required 

to meet category and class ratings or 

§ 61.31 of this chapter endorsement 

requirements. However, if the flight 

training includes a solo flight segment, 

this does not relieve the person 

receiving training from the requirements 

of part 61, subpart C, of this chapter. 

This training is limited to a low mass, 

high drag aircraft with an empty weight 

less than 650 pounds and a maximum 

speed in level flight with maximum 

continuous power less than 87 KCAS. 

(iii) If the aircraft is equipped with 

ejection seats and systems, such systems 

must be rigged, maintained, and 

inspected in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s recommendations. 

Before providing training in aircraft 

equipped with operable ejection 

systems, whether armed or not armed, 

all aircraft occupants must complete a 

course of ejection seat training. 

(iv) When conducting spin and upset 

training, the operator must maintain a 

minimum recovery altitude of 6,000 feet 

above ground level unless the 

Administrator authorizes a lower 

altitude. 

(v) A copy of the LODA must be 

carried on board the aircraft during 

flight training conducted under the 

LODA. 

(vi) The LODA holder must keep a 

record of the training given for a period 

of 36 calendar months from the 

completion date of the training. The 

authorized instructor must sign the 

trainee’s training record certifying that 

the flight training or ground training 

was given. The training record must 

include the following: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
80342 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(A) The name and certificate number 

(if applicable) of the trainee; 

(B) The name, signature, and 

certificate number of the instructor; 

(C) The date trained; 

(D) The training received; 

(E) The trainee’s specific need for 

training, if applicable. 

(vii) Notwithstanding § 43.1(b) of this 

chapter or § 91.409(c)(1), all aircraft 

must: 

(A) Except for turbine powered or 

large aircraft, within the preceding 100 

hours of time in service, have received 

an annual, 100-hour, or condition 

inspection equivalent to the scope and 

detail of appendix D to part 43 of this 

chapter and been approved for return to 

service in accordance with part 43. The 

100-hour limitation may be exceeded by 

not more than 10 hours while enroute 

to reach a place where the inspection 

can be done. The excess time used to 

reach a place where the inspection can 

be done must be included in computing 

the next 100 hours of time in service; or 

(B) Except for turbine powered or 

large aircraft, be inspected in 

accordance with an FAA-approved 

inspection program that includes 

provisions for ensuring continued 

airworthiness and recording the current 

status on life-limited parts and in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(C) For turbine-powered or large 

aircraft, be inspected in accordance with 

an FAA-approved inspection program 

that meets the scope and detail of the 

requirements of § 91.409(e), (f)(4), and 

(g) for ensuring continued airworthiness 

and recording time remaining on lifelimited parts in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(viii) Notwithstanding any exception 

due to the experimental airworthiness 

certification of the aircraft, LODA 

holders with experimental aircraft must 

comply with FAA Airworthiness 

Directives applicable to any 

corresponding make or model aircraft 

holding a different type of airworthiness 

certificate or applicable to any article 

installed on the aircraft. The LODA 

holder must evaluate the aircraft and its 

articles to determine if compliance with 

the FAA Airworthiness Directive is 

necessary for the continued safe 

operation of the aircraft. LODA holders 

must keep a maintenance record entry 

of those FAA Airworthiness Directives 

evaluated. For those FAA Airworthiness 

Directives for which the LODA holder 

determined compliance was necessary 

for the continued safe operation of the 

aircraft, the record must also include the 

method of compliance, and if the FAA 

Airworthiness Directive requires 

recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required. 

(5) Only the following persons may be 

on board the aircraft during operations 

conducted under the deviation 

authority: 

(i) The authorized instructor, 

designated examiner, person receiving 

flight training or being checked or 

tested, or persons essential for the safe 

operation of the aircraft; and 

(ii) Notwithstanding any operating 

limitation applicable under § 91.9(a) 

that prohibits the carriage of passengers 

for compensation or hire, up to two 

persons enrolled in a LODA training 

course for the same aircraft may observe 

the flight training from a forwardmost 

observer seat with an unobstructed view 

of the flight deck, provided carriage of 

those persons is not prohibited by any 

other regulation. 

(6) The Administrator may limit the 

types of training, testing, and checking 

authorized under this deviation 

authority. Training, testing, and 

checking under this deviation authority 

must be conducted consistent with the 

training program submitted for FAA 

review. 

(c) Operations not requiring a letter of 

deviation authority. The following 

operations may be conducted without a 

letter of deviation authority. 

(1) An authorized instructor, 

registered owner, lessor, or lessee of an 

aircraft is not required to obtain a letter 

of deviation authority from the 

Administrator to allow, conduct, or 

receive flight training, checking, or 

testing in a limited category aircraft, 

experimental aircraft, or primary 

category aircraft if— 

(i) The authorized instructor is not 

providing both the training and the 

aircraft; 

(ii) No person advertises or broadly 

offers the aircraft as available for flight 

training, checking, or testing; and 

(iii) No person receives compensation 

for the use of the aircraft for any flight 

during which flight training, checking, 

or testing was received, other than 

expenses for owning, operating, and 

maintaining the aircraft. Compensation 

for the use of the aircraft for profit is 

prohibited. 

(2) A person may operate a limited 

category aircraft, experimental aircraft, 

or primary category aircraft to conduct 

flight training, checking, or testing 

without a letter of deviation authority if 

no person provides and no person 

receives compensation for the flight 

training, checking, or testing, or for the 

use of the aircraft. 

(d) Previously issued letters of 

deviation authority. For deviation 

authority issued under § 91.319 prior to 

December 2, 2024, the following 

requirements apply— 

(1) The deviation holder may 

continue to operate under the letter of 

deviation authority until December 1, 

2026; 

(2) The deviation holder must 

continue to comply with the conditions 

and limitations in the letter of deviation 

authority when conducting an operation 

under the letter of deviation authority in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section; 

(3) The letter of deviation authority 

may be cancelled or amended at any 

time; and 

(4) The letter of deviation authority 

terminates on December 1, 2026. 

■ 18. Amend § 91.327 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 91.327 Aircraft having a special 

airworthiness certificate in the light-sport 

category: Operating limitations. 

(a) * * * 

(2) To conduct flight training, 

checking, and testing. 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701–44703, sec. 517 of 

Public Law 115–254, sec. 5604 of Public 

Law 117–263, and secs. 814, 826, and 

923 of Public Law 118–63 in 

Washington, DC. 

Michael Gordon Whitaker, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22009 Filed 10–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2