The FAA today announced a public filing in the federal register of a 118-page final rule that states it will open up several areas of operations enabling pilots to credit flight time toward civil regulatory requirements. Notably, under the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, the final rule amends the operating regulations “for experimental aircraft to permit certain flight training, testing, and checking in these aircraft without a letter of deviation authority.” Also, under 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.” That ruling also revises certain amendments related to logging recent flight experience, flight instructor privileges, flight training in aircraft holding special airworthiness certificates, and “the related prohibitions on conducting these activities for compensation or hire.”
In short, the primary beneficiaries of these FAA rule changes are:
Pilots – Pilots gain the ability to log more flight time in public aircraft operations, accumulate second-in-command (SIC) time, access more specialized training, and meet certification requirements more easily, accelerating their career advancement and maintaining proficiency.
Flight Instructors – Instructors benefit from expanded privileges to offer elective and specialized training without extra regulatory hurdles, allowing them to serve a wider range of pilots and provide more advanced training options.
Public Service Pilots – Pilots involved in firefighting, forestry, and other government operations can now log flight time for FAA certification, which was previously restricted, aiding their career progression.
Aviation Industry – With streamlined regulations, fewer administrative burdens, and greater training flexibility, the aviation industry overall benefits from more proficient, better-trained pilots, enhancing safety and efficiency.
Overall, pilots, instructors, and the aviation sector as a whole see improvements in training access, regulatory flexibility, and career growth opportunities.
I disagree Kevin. Raf did not provide a breakdown. He provided his self-analysis (opinion) of Mr. Phelp’s reported facts, which is what we all as news media consumers should be doing on our own. Mr. Phelps primarily stuck to what journalists should always be doing, but few do - reporting the facts and details and refraining from giving his own subjective in-depth analysis to try and shape and persuade the reader’s thoughts about the subject. Which is important because not all of the folks in the industry are going to reach the same conclusion about these rule changes. You have free will to agree with Raf’s breakdown of the report, but that burden cannot be placed upon the reporter to include it in his report.
It will probably take another act of Congress to straighten out the new mess created with the latest Washington legal interpretation of supervision of non- rated maintenance techs! (FAR 43.3)
I taught journalism for 42 years and the way stories like this one should be written is somewhere in-between. Write the facts then add context by quoting experts and officials and even the odd pilot-in-the-street. That AI-derived summary (4o reference) is useful but should have been asked of the FAA, AOPA or EAA. But this story was written in the middle of the night from a press release so that wasn’t possible. The writer could have waited for morning to add such quotes but probably wanted to be the first to tell us.
The more important question to me is who qualifies to be called mister and who doesn’t? That’s just arrogance.
The AI tool was used to help break down a complicated and technical document into something easier to understand. The AI clarified the regulations and provided useful insights for those affected by the changes. Its role was to assist in explaining the information and complement human analysis, not to replace factual reporting. This is an interpretation and analysis by AI 4o of the official FAA document, as provided by the editorial’s link.
And it works pretty well, too. I wrote a rather long technical document and when I finished, I found I had written something so dense I couldn’t understand what I wrote. I asked GPT-4o for a summary and the result was clear and concise, and made the points I wanted to make perfectly. I used that data to rewrite my original document.
I dunno, Matt. I have thirty years of experience reading, writing, and interpreting international standards for computer languages, so I decided to read the full filing.
With a good night’s sleep and a fresh pot of coffee, I managed to make it through it. Comprehension wasn’t the problem; it’s surprisingly clearly written for a Federal document. What was perfectly obvious however, was the sheer number of considerations, complications, turf boundaries, and Interested Parties with oars in that tiny dinghy. It appears that every effort was made to accommodate those IP’s concerns, while staying within the bounds of FAA authority, without sacrificing Peter to pay Paul. Some of those concerns were conflicting, so not everyone got his axe sharpened exactly the way they wanted. I came away with a refreshed appreciation for the FAA experts herding all those feral cats,
I recommend you read just the “Executive Summary”, then scan the “Final Rule Action” column of the “Summary of Regulatory Text Changes”, then skip down to the “Summary of the NPRM”. Brew a fresh pot of coffee, then tackle all the "Summary of Comment"s and their "Summary of Response"s until your bladder complains. When you get back, skip down to page 86 and read “A. Regulatory Impact Analysis”. After that, I think you’ll be astounded that this relatively minor accommodation for pilots to log time, ever saw the light of day.
I see your point Planeco, but I think you miss mine. Mr. Phelps could do the majority of us a favor by explaining why these facts matter, and what they actually mean to each of the different populations of aviators, as Mr Sierra has done. Sure Raf’s opinions are just that - opinions - as are all of the comments on this forum - mine included. But he does a better job explaining what the facts mean to us regular folk without having to be an expert in FAA-ese.
“Limited category”, “Primary category”, etc.?? I’ve been trying to follow this topic but it’s overly complicated and has lead me down so many Google rabbit holes trying to make sense of what it means to me a simple PPL.
So, thank you Raf for your opinion which has enlightened me, simply, and perhaps per Planeco incorrectly, but still better than Mr Phelps facts did.
A good journalist will stick to the facts, but interpret them for the layman.