[HN Gopher] What planes can you fly without a pilot's license? ___________________________________________________________________ What planes can you fly without a pilot's license? Author : b8 Score : 41 points Date : 2023-07-15 19:57 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (pilotinstitute.com) (TXT) w3m dump (pilotinstitute.com) | CobaltFire wrote: | There are a few more complete aircraft than what that list has, | if interested: | | Badlands F1 thru F5 models are based on the old Kitfox Lite: | https://www.badlandaircraft.com/ | | Merlin Lite is based on the Merlin LSA: https://www.aeromarine- | lsa.com/merlin-lite/ | | Both of those are pretty interesting aircraft more in line with | what most people might think of as a full aircraft. | b8 wrote: | The Mirocopter SCH-2A meets the FAA requirements so it doesn't | require a pilots license. You can buy it for $35k on Ebay [0]. | It's cheaper than most cars and gas wise (5 gallons for 50min for | flight time) would make it about the same cost as commuting to | work in a car. | | 0. https://www.ebay.com/itm/354879150317 | Sardtok wrote: | I don't think commuting by helicopter counts as recreational | flying, though. | rlpb wrote: | The article doesn't really cover it but being able to fly | without a license probably isn't the same as flying near a | controlled (ie. towered) airport. If want to commute and aren't | in the middle of nowhere you might find that flying in your | local airspace does require a radio license in practice at | least. | | Source: I am a licensed pilot but not familiar with flying in | the US. | b8 wrote: | Huh, TIL. I've seen paragliders fly without headsets though | near me (30mins from my states capital). Earning a radio | license and getting a comms setup seems trivial though. | sokoloff wrote: | The radius of the surface area of a class B airspace (for | the busiest airports) might only be about 6 miles. | | http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=42.363&lon=-71.006&zoom=10 | &... | | Look for the blue SFC (surface) with a line over it | designation around the area for the airport with the | multiple concentric blue rings. Those will be class B | airports. Typically two rings and magenta will be class C. | Class D will be dashed blue. | CobaltFire wrote: | You are correct. Knowing the airspace is required under Part | 103, and operating an aircraft under those rules puts you | under the legal requirements of Part 103. | | If you want to know more the entire document is only a couple | pages: | | https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F. | .. | rlpb wrote: | I was wondering how access to class D airspace would work | for an unlicensed ultralight pilot. Can they get a radio? | Would they need a [radio] license both for themselves and | for the aircraft? Is that practical to acquire without a | PPL? Or, without a radio, would ATC approval for a flight | be available over the phone before departure instead or | would that be out of the question? | | For a regular pilot this is all just automatic with flight | following of course. | sokoloff wrote: | SS 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. | | No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class | A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the | lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E | airspace designated for an airport unless that person has | prior authorization from the ATC facility having | jurisdiction over that airspace. | | What does that mean in practice? I suspect my local | airport (a moderately busy class D field) would not | authorize a NORDO (no radio) ultralight. There is no | longer a requirement for an FCC license for an aviation | band radio. (That was previously required and possible to | get as an individual without a PPL.) I suspect most class | D fields would authorize the transition of a radio- | equipped ultralight. | hackernewds wrote: | not every one is versed in these esoteric rules, so practically | still prepare to be nagged and arrested while flying these. | blt wrote: | > You don't need a license to operate these aircraft because | they're easy enough to fly that the Federal Aviation | Administration (FAA) doesn't see the need to regulate them. | | I don't think that's the reason. The reason is that they are | unlikely to hurt anyone besides the pilot in a crash. | | They can have an engine failure, stall-spin, or fly into a cloud | just as readily as any other plane. Those are the biggest risks | for GA, and they're no easier to handle in an ultralight. | quasarj wrote: | Flying into a cloud is a big risk? They're everywhere! | mschuster91 wrote: | Here in Germany, if you don't have an IFR (instrument flight | rules) rating, you're not allowed to fly through clouds, | because if you're not trained in using avionics or the plane | doesn't have them in the first place, you are very very | likely to kill yourself, your passengers and people on the | ground. If you encounter unexpected clouds, you are supposed | to GTFO... if you try to fly "under" the clouds, you may end | up forced into the clouds anyway by natural elevation, | minimum ground clearances or obstacles and hitting a mountain | or whatever, and if you try to fly above the clouds you may | end up being forced to a higher altitude than your plane can | maintain, or you can't push down to a landing site and run | out of fuel. | | In fact, unexpected clouds are among the top killers in | general aviation with a fatality (!) rate of 86% - if you | lose visual, you got 180 seconds to live on average [1]. | | _Stay the fuck away from clouds, fog and other visual | obstacles with anything that moves, no matter if it 's a | drone, a plane, a ship or a road vehicle, unless you are | trained and certified in instrumental operation_. You will | either hit something you didn't intend to yourself, or you | will get hit by something that could have avoided you, had | your vehicle had collision avoidance systems (in aircraft, | TCAS, in watercraft ordinary radar plus AIS - neither of | which are a requirement in small vehicles). | | [1] https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all- | news/2022/june/pilot... | psunavy03 wrote: | When you aren't instrument-qualified, get disoriented, and | fly yourself into the ground, then yes, they are a big risk | for the weekend warrior lawyers and doctors who never get an | instrument rating. | itsyaboi wrote: | Not only is it a big risk, it's also illegal. | dylan604 wrote: | For skydiving as well. However...there are plenty of | stories of intentionally falling through a cloud on your | back so you can see a person shaped hole in the cloud as | you fall through. So it does happen. But people drive | >55mph too | semicolon_storm wrote: | Pretty insane you can fly these with no license or certificates | when basically all drones require having your TRUST certificate | or full on drone license to fly. | jopolous wrote: | 1. These can only be flown in most class E airspace and class | G, so not anywhere close to most airports 2. They are much | bigger and more visible than drones 3. The ultralight pilot is | inside the aircraft which means "see and avoid" is much more | reasonable | | It's hard to compare ultralights to drones IMO as a licensed | pilot | withinboredom wrote: | That's because people with drones were assholes. Flying into | people's yards and demanding their property back, or suing | because it broke. All kinds of stupid shit. | | Thus it had to be regulated to stop the nonsense. | crooked-v wrote: | Barrier to entry. With a $1,000 drone you can be doing | something stupid in an hour and not second-guess yourself right | up until it crashes into somebody's head at full speed. On the | other hand, for an ultralight you've shelled out $27,000 | (current price for an Aerolite 103), plus costs for storage, | transportation, arrangements for taking off at a small | airfield, etc. | tzs wrote: | 1. If an ultralight crashes into my house the pilot has a good | chance of being seriously injured or killed. | | If a drone crashes into my house the only harm to the pilot is | financial. | | That gives the ultralight pilots a much bigger incentive to not | do stupid things with their aircraft. | | 2. Ultralights have to stay out of cities and towns and can't | fly over large groups of people. | | That puts some more on how much damage they can do to other | people and other people's properties than drones have. | golwengaud wrote: | Setting the legalities aside, flying any of these without the | training behind a pilot's license sounds like a great way to have | some fun, right up until you have a really bad day. Maybe you can | skip the license---I haven't looked at those regs myself---but | you can't skip the skills. | | (I'd also want to take a hard look at the design, parts, and | maintenance before I flew something like this---but I don't | really have the training or experience to do that. I know some | people who I might trust to do it for me, but I think they all | have A&P certificates. Again, maybe you can take shortcuts & skip | the expensive, highly trained mechanic, but that shortcut may not | take you where you want to go.) | CobaltFire wrote: | Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough | to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous. | | Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their | restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal | GA aircraft. | golwengaud wrote: | > Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to | their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than | normal GA aircraft. | | Interesting! How so? | | > Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low | enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still | dangerous. | | What do you have in mind? | | Quite a lot of what worries me when I fly involves misjudging | the combination of weather with the aircraft's capabilities & | my capabilities. Time under the care of a good instructor | helps a whole lot with that judgement: you get to see a whole | bunch of conditions that are beyond your capabilities & | struggle with them, without endangering yourself or the | aircraft. And (e.g.) winds variable 13-23, 3G12 on runway 09 | is not so trivial, even if your aircraft has a 15kt crosswind | limitation. | | Or---I fly gliders, and I've had it drummed into my head that | you _never ever_ fly between trees when you 're landing in | some random field, because there may be a power line and | power lines are a great way to kill yourself. | | There are a thousand things like this, that are more about | environment & pilot than aircraft. | | (FWIW I've flown power in the past, but mostly fly gliders | now; still newish. Maybe that skews my perceptions a bit; | glider pilots are pretty willing to fly in windy or gusty | conditions, in search of ridge or wave lift, so it's not so | uncommon that I'm standing there asking myself "sure, the | much more experienced pilots are fine to fly in this, but am | _I_ fine? " This is really hard! I'm really grateful to my | instructors for giving me knowledge & experience with which | to make that decision, and for giving me good training to | fall back on if I misjudge!) | CobaltFire wrote: | To stay under the Part 103 weight requirements you are | almost certain to need a small, air cooled, two stroke | engine. Even the best of these fall FAR short of both the | TBO and reported MTBF numbers. As an example, offhand the | Rotax 582s were a 200hr TBO and were known for cutting out | in flight if abused or not maintained very well. | | As for them being less lethal, that comes down to the | listed operating areas and the limits imposed by the | construction of them. In reality they are just less lethal | to non-involved bystanders; they will still kill their | pilots quite easily. | sokoloff wrote: | > even if your aircraft has a 15kt crosswind limitation | | Aircraft are certified with a demonstrated crosswind | component, which is not a limitation. | joshuahaglund wrote: | Part 103 aircraft must have a stall speed under 25 knots | and a top powered speed of 55 knots in level flight. I | don't fly but I imagine aircraft designed for lower speeds | could be more survivable in a crash. Also you need less | runway to land | jsight wrote: | +1 - They are simpler and slower, but not really safe without | adequate training. Best to get quite a bit of it, though it | wouldn't need to be as extensive as a private pilot course. | andrewfromx wrote: | this is amazing, I had no idea you could just skip the license if | u use a tiny plane. | d4mi3n wrote: | You can also get a pilot's license at 14 years old in many | parts of the US. | | That said, do so with caution. Flying is still dangerous and | accidents will often be fatal, license or no. Note the | provisions about "no passengers allowed". | | One reason these planes don't require licenses is that the risk | of collateral damage is low enough to be comparable to a car. | You can hurt yourself quite badly while not endangering others. | | So have fun, but definitely read up on the risks before you | play around with aviation on a lark. | bombcar wrote: | The nice thing about being the pilot is that something like | 90% of small plane fatalities are the pilot's fault. | | Compare to about 50% being the motorcyclists' fault. | | So if you're careful and level-headed, small planes are a | safe delight. | | But if you ever feel pressured to fly into weather, then you | will die. | sokoloff wrote: | > You can also get a pilot's license at 14 years old in many | parts of the US. | | FAA is federal in scope, so the rules are the same across the | US. | | You can get a student pilot certificate (allowing you to solo | an aircraft) at 16 for airplanes/helicopters and 14 for | gliders and balloons. 17 is the minimum age for a private | pilot certificate and I believe 16 is the minimum age for a | glider/balloon pilot. | wanderingmoose wrote: | I'm not sure about power licenses, but for gliders | (sailplanes, not hang-gliders), you could solo at 14 via a | student license that required instructor supervision. You | could get a full license at 16. | | Growing up my family was into gliding (sailplanes) and I | counted down the days until I was 14 so I could solo. Looking | back, especially w/ a 14 yr old kid of my own...I think my | parents were crazy for letting me fly, but I'm really glad | they did. I have a medical condition and so couldn't | reasonably fly power planes. This was before the power | "sport-license" that is a good compromise between access for | hobbyists and a regular license. | | The comment about risks if very true. These types of | activities can have real risks. It is sobering seeing a | friend have a fatal accident. (With gliding it is almost | always trying to make it back to an airport, getting too low | and having a stall/spin close to the ground). | | If anyone is near southwest ohio in the us....I'd highly | suggest checking out Caesars Creek Soaring Club: | https://www.facebook.com/CaesarCreekSoaringClub/ | tzs wrote: | That covers what you can fly. There are also restrictions on when | and where you can fly. These are daytime VFR [1] conditions only, | only in uncontrolled airspace, cannot fly over cites or towns or | large groups of people, cannot create hazards to other people or | property, must yield right of way to other aircraft, and must | comply with all FAA NOTAMs [2]. | | [1] Visual Flight Rules. VFR conditions are conditions where you | can operate and navigate primarily relying on what you can see | outside the aircraft. As opposed to IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) | where you can rely entirely on your instruments and do not need | to see anything outside. | | [2] originally Notice to Airmen (now Notice to Air Missions if | one wants to take into account female pilots). Notices that the | FAA publishes about potential hazards or events that might affect | flights. For example if some airspace is temporarily closed | because of military activity, there would be a NOTAM to let | civilian pilots know that they have to avoid that airspace. | imoverclocked wrote: | It's also worth noting that "congested areas" are very loosely | defined. Eg: It could be interpreted as a group of people | sitting on bleachers. | CPLX wrote: | It can and would | pc86 wrote: | If you have reason to know that they're there, sure. Flying | over a high school football game is probably going to cause | you issues. If you happen to be flying along and there | happens to be a couple dozen people in the bleachers you | fly over, you've unlikely done anything wrong. | duxup wrote: | > only in uncontrolled airspace, cannot fly over cites or towns | or large groups of people | | Yeah I wouldn't want some yahoo playing around with that in my | neighborhood. | dghughes wrote: | The lack of mentioning daytime in the article had me worried. | | Also there is no flying in an aerodrome and hopefully the | person knows what an aerodrome is. Or near hospitals since many | are restricted for helicopter air ambulances. Or anywhere near | anything military. | | I briefly took some flying lessons and there is an enormous | amount to know both the flying part and the ground school part. | itsyaboi wrote: | Aerodrome? Is this a euro-specific rule? | WirelessGigabit wrote: | To be honest, I don't like pages like this. | | The only reason this page is here is is to have more content for | SEO purposes. The only 2 links on this page are links to other | pages on the same website. | | All it does is pollute search results. | zzless wrote: | Police in the US do not have to have a license to operate | anything, including aircraft. In this case, insurance | requirements take over though. They may have a legal right to fly | but no insurance company would approve operation by anyone but a | commercial pilot. I got a few hours in a local police Bell 206 | because they needed a commercial pilot to fly while their | official pilot only had a private license. Fun! | ryanwaggoner wrote: | I'd like to hear more about this, because I'm a pilot and I've | never heard anywhere that the FAA waives their license | requirements for local police? That doesn't make any sense to | me. | CobaltFire wrote: | The relevant CFR, typically known as Part 103: | | https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F... | gemanor wrote: | Having a picture of a Piper Super Cab in the header and gliders | with tractor engines in the content, sounds like clickbait. I'm a | big fan of ultralights and paragliding, but they have more in | common with gliders than with aircraft. Also, maybe UPO, but | simulators teach more about airplanes than those tools. | wood_spirit wrote: | Ultralights are fun and practical and their enduring popularity | speaks against your assertion. They are also popular even in | countries that require a pilots license for them. | gemanor wrote: | I like ultralights myself and paragliding for fun. I'm | speaking at the point of having a picture of a piper super | cub (required license) in the header and write 'this is the | airplanes you can fly with no license'. | jameshart wrote: | Additionally: | | - any plane you're on board of, where all the licensed pilots on | board have become incapacitated. | | - your instructor's plane during a flying lesson | | Programmers should insist on more precision in their rule | definitions. | brucethemoose2 wrote: | This page is SEO-ey, with the "how to" question titles and | padding and such. I would have instinctively skipped it coming | from Google. | | ...Which is really sad, because it actually reads like a earnest | author just trying to make their informative page visible. | crooked-v wrote: | Well, there's definitely some SEO involved, because the site | sells ground school courses for various piloting and drone | flying subjects, as well as some free ones on specific hardware | (like https://pilotinstitute.com/course/cessna-172-deep-dive/ | about the Cessna 172). The courses are pretty good from what | I've looked at with their drone stuff, though. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-15 23:00 UTC)