[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)