(a) An examiner represents the Administrator for the purpose of conducting practical tests for certificates and ratings issued under this part and to observe an applicant's ability to perform the areas of operation on the practical test.
(b) The examiner is not the pilot in command of the aircraft during the practical test unless the examiner agrees to act in that capacity for the flight or for a portion of the flight by prior arrangement with:
(1) The applicant; or
(2) A person who would otherwise act as pilot in command of the flight or for a portion of the flight.
(c) Notwithstanding the type of aircraft used during the practical test, the applicant and the examiner (and any other occupants authorized to be on board by the examiner) are not subject to the requirements or limitations for the carriage of passengers that are specified in this chapter.
(d) An examiner may not conduct a practical test for the issuance of an initial category and class rating (if a class rating is required) at the private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate level in an aircraft that requires a type rating or a flight simulator or flight training device that represents an aircraft that requires a type rating unless:
(1) The applicant meets the eligibility requirements for a type rating in that aircraft or already holds that type rating on their certificate; and
(2) The practical test contains the tasks and maneuvers for a type rating specified in the areas of operation at the airline transport pilot certification level.
[Docket 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40897, July 30, 1997, as amended by FAA-2023-1275, Amdt. 61-157, 89 FR 92484, Nov. 21, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2023 · leading case:
Flt Training Intl v. FAA, 58 F.4th 234 (5th Cir. 2023).
Flt Training Intl v. FAA, 58 F.4th 234 (5th Cir. 2023).
“14 C.F.R. § 61.47 (a). For years, FTI has offered a flight training course which, though utilizing type rated aircraft, culminates in the issuance of an ATP certificate without a type rating.”
In Re Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans, Etc., 422 F. Supp. 1166 (W.D. Tenn. 1975).
· cites it 2× “However, prior to March 19, 1969, he had not flown in a DC-3 aircraft since December 1, 1968, and therefore did not meet the “recency of experience” requirement of 14 CFR § 61.47 , Federal Aviation Regulations.”
Hayes v. United States, 899 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 2× “” Appellant United States urges that the district court erred because Belcher was an FAA inspector merely “observing the applicant’s ability to perform satisfactorily the procedures and maneuvers on the flight test.”
Roach v. Churchman, 431 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1970).
“14 C.F.R. § 61.47 (b) (1970 edition). The district court specifically found that the pilot violated this regulation.”
Friesen-Hall v. Colle, 17 P.3d 349 (Kan. 2001).
“14 C.F.R. 61.47 (2000). In Kansas cases after Hayden and Rivers, where the issue to be decided was peripheral to whether circumstantial evidence will support a claim of pilot negligence in a dual control airplane accident case, the level of evidence required in such a case has…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.