Talk:Pilot certification in the United States

message: I rember someone telling me that you can fly with an instructor and log hours before turning 16, some recomend starting at 14 or 14 and a half. Is there a minimum age to log hours?
--Rcopley (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no minimum age to start instruction and log hours as a student pilot flying with an instructor. I think 14 is too young to start training; a Private certificate can take as little as a couple months to complete, or about 6 months if flying twice a week. I would suggest starting around age 16 (or ground school at age 15.5).  Unless you want to stroke your ego and solo on your 16th birthday. CFI Joblio (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Training

message: Can anyone identify the source where for the information that spells out each category/class recognized by the FAA? I'm working on a project where I need to know each category/class combo that exists, and I can't find any info anywhere in FAA publications. 72.191.163.46 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for category/class combinations

message: Could we clarify the reference to judicial action being required to revoke a 'license' ? Nowhere in 14 CFR is reference made to the term 'license' except in connection with a US driver's license, and a 'foreign pilot license' (presumably because of terminology used in ICAO Annex 1). The FAA has no basis for talking about any other sort of license. (weirpwoer (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The last two sentences of the current opening contribute nothing to an understanding of Pilot certification in the United States.  The sentences, if they are accurate, belong in articles about licensing and/or certification generally.  I suppose they could be moved into a separate discussion of pilot "de-certification," which could, I think, reasonably appear within the scope of this article's topic.  —SkipperPilot (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of "license" in introduction

message: This section doesn't make sense. Certificates don't have categories, ratings do. My certificate isn't in the airplane category, I have a certificate with a rating for airplanes. Not quite sure how to fix this so I'm just complaining. :-) -- Captaindan 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised it slightly to use more precise terminology. How's it look now?--chris.lawson 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still sounds weird to me so I clarified it a bit. Sorry for being an accuracy fascist. :-) -- Captaindan 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks even better now. Yay for collaboration. :) --chris.lawson 03:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories of certificate

message: It has been suggested that Flight instruction (US) be merged into this article or section.
Agree - that article is ugly and this article has all the same information. Joblio 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Flight instruction (US)

message: The article is US specific, and all of the rest of the certificates (Private Pilot Licence, Commercial Pilot Licence, etc.) are basically disambiguation pages that point to how pilots are licenced by country. McNeight 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree... I've merged portions of the Sport pilot article into this one... obviously still a work in progress. ChadScott 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completed! ChadScott 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Sport pilot certificate 

message: Will the anon who keeps adding completely ridiculous B.S. like "must pass high school with physics and mathematics" and "Class I medical by approved doctor" to the Commercial section please explain him- or herself? There is absolutely NOTHING anywhere in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 61, that addresses such specific education requirements, and commercial pilots are *explicitly* required to hold only a second-class medical.--chris.lawson 02:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certification requirements 

message: I think Pilot Journey (www.pilotjourney.com) really should be added to external links.  The site has the largest, most up to date list of flight schools AND Pilot Journey's Discovery Flight program is now larger than Be a Pilots with over 1000 coupons issued each month. -Gary
:Although this may be true, Gary, one of the Wikipedia guidelines says that Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion.  If other users find the site useful, it should be added by them, not by you.  Another reason I believe the link continues to reverted is that your site is your for-profit status (as opposed to AOPA's non-profit status) and filled with ads for RAA, FSA, ATP, etc.  Wikipedia is not for promotion, it is for recording what people feel is important. I'm no expert on Wikipedia, this is just what I have observed.  Cheers! Joblio 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit the nail on the head here.  That's exactly why I reverted the link previously.  Gary, your site is certainly a good reference, but since it's for-profit and obviously primarily geared toward driving business to for-profit CFR Part 141 operators, it's inappropriate as a link here.  Lots of great sites get excluded this way, and that's the price we pay for neutrality. ChadScott 18:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: PilotOutlook.com has detailed information on these licenses. If you wish, you can add a link for it here - Rajat
:Because you specifically own/administer the site, adding links to your site across these pages constitutes linkspam and is not tolerated on WP, because wikipedia is not a collection of links.  If other users find that your site is noteworthy, it may become part of Wikipedia, but not until then.  Editors around here are good at picking up self-promotion. Joblio 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I see a lot of edits where people are adding the qualifier, "...in the United States..."  This article *is* about how the certification structure, process, and qualifications are in the United States, so it's a redundant qualifier.  So, stop doing that. :) ChadScott 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...In the United States..." 

message: Hi...
I am 16 years old and i wish to know if i am able to be a pilot.
I wear glases...
My dioptry is: -0.5 on both eyes
correctable to 20/20 must be 17 years of age to be a private pilot. Then go get a medical!
::Your vision has to be corrected to at least 20/40 (20/20 if you want to fly for hire).  You can begin taking lessons at any age, but you must be 17 by the time you complete your training and fly with an examiner to earn your actual certificate. -- ChadScott 03:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vision and age 

message: Private pilot only need medical cert class 3? i think the correct one is class 2
and for commercial pilot, medical cert class 1 is needed.
for color deficiency people, is it possible to get medical class one?
if according to this page, class two medical cert also can get commercial pilot licence??
thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.17.210 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States, medical certificates are only required for certain privileges, not for specific certificates. A third class is required for private pilot privileges, a second class is required for commercial privileges, and a first class is required for Airline Transport Pilot privileges. In other words, an ATP can have a third class medical, but he/she would only be allowed to exercise private pilot privileges. As for color deficiency, all certificate classes can be held by color deficient pilots, but they will carry a restriction reading, "not valid for night flight or by color signal control."  This generally keeps color deficient pilots from working professionally because they can only fly during daylight hours. There are many jobs for commercial pilots that only require flight during daylight hours and all of those are available to color deficient pilots. I hope that helps. -- ChadScott 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Certificate Requirement Correction  

message: The type rating article redirected here for no obvious reason, so I've started it as a seperate article now. BabyNuke 12:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your type rating article addresses an international audience, rather than the type rating verbiage here; I think it's fine and could even benefit from some expansion.  Jim Ward (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type rating 

message: The medical certificate example indicates the holder is 5 years old, a little young to be flying.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.140.137 (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By my math, John Doe would have been—at the time of the exam—two months shy of 39 years of age. —SkipperPilot (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Certificate 

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but an ATP does not require an instrument rating. An unrestricted commercial (with instrument) is required to take the ATP ride, but there is no "ATP instrument rating". In addition, it is probably worth noting that a large emphasis of the ATP is instrument / cross-country operations and that certain categories (LTA, glider, weight-shift) have no rating above commercial. 66.60.188.7 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the article earlier to indicate that there's no explicit instrument rating for an ATP; rather, it is implied.  I'll look this up later, but I believe that ATP privileges apply only to Airplane and Powered lift categories and the Helicopter class.  A substantial amount of the ATP Airplane written, oral and practical tests relate to instrument flying; it's a safe bet that the same is true for Powered lift and Helicopter. Jim Ward (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATP / Instrument 

message: Why isn't there a section for CFI under the "Pilot Certificates" heading?
*Comment - The CFI certificate is not a pilot certificate.  It confers no pilot privileges and doesn't technically belong in an article titled "Pilot certification…". Jim Ward (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFI (Certified Flight Instructor) 

message: I've started to overhaul the General structure of certification section to bring it up to date with 2009 regulations, simplify the language, eliminate redundancy and try to clarify the relationships between privilege level, category, class, type and instrument ratings.  There's a lot more work to do, including making citations more articulate and correcting stale references to certain ultralights not requiring pilot certificates; this changed upon the advent of LSA & the Sport Pilot certificate.  Further, subsequent sections contain redundant and sometimes stale information requiring attention as well.  I'll get back to it eventually, but if you're feeling inspired, please have at it.  Jim Ward (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section overhaul 

message: The recreational section needs expanding and more detail, or more detail about the differences between it and sport. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rec/Sport 

message: As "Commercial astronaut" is not a pilot certificate offered by FAA today, I propose striking this section.  Comments? Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 01:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed.  RP459 (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial astronaut? 

message: I have a question. If say, someone obtained a Private Pilot License at the age of 18 or 17, then went on to Annapolis, graduated, became a Navy officer, and then trained to fly say Navy fighter jets and is currently a naval aviator flying Super Hornets, is he allowed to fly privately complex airplanes or to fly under instrument meteorological conditions, or at night?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  QUESTION 

message: Both of the bolded statements below are  incorrect:
Sport Pilots are only eligible to fly aircraft that are either certified specifically as light-sport aircraft (LSA) or were certified prior to the LSA regulations and are within the maximum weight and performance limitations of light-sport aircraft.
The date of certification of an aircraft is not relevant to that aircraft's eligibility to be flown by a person holding a sport pilot airmen's certificate.  One example would be an aircraft issued an Experimental Amateur Built airworthiness certificate today.   If that aircraft also meets all the definitions of a light sport aircraft, then a person holding a light sport pilot airmen's certificate, and/or a person holding a different airmen's certificate who chooses to operate within the restrictions of a light sport pilot airmen's certificatehttps://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e6b7aa037b60140096e5bb5383063655&pitd=20170321&node=se14.2.61_1303&rgn=div8, may legally fly that aircrafthttps://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e6b7aa037b60140096e5bb5383063655&pitd=20170321&node=se14.2.61_1315&rgn=div8. 
The statement regarding "weight and performance" is incomplete.  It would perhaps be better to use the phrase "meets the definition of a Light Sport Aircraft" and have the last three words link to either the relevant wikipedia article or the FAR definition itselfhttps://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?pitd=20170321&node=se14.1.1_11&rgn=div8
Putting this on talk for people to cross-check.  If no one objects (or beats me to it, hint, hint), I will edit these changes in a couple of weeks. 
198.231.23.240 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport Pilot eligible aircraft 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pilot certification in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214124431/http://www.aopa.org/ to http://www.aopa.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)