FAA Legal Interpretations

Introduction to Legal Interpretations

No set of regulations can ever foresee every possible contingency and situation. FAA Legal Interpretations are additional explanations and interpretations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs/14 CFRs) where there is ambiguity in the phrasing or their application to a particular situation is unclear. Typically, a legal interpretation is issued as an official response by the FAA to questions from an individual or from one of the FAA’s offices, and then made publicly available. Some FAA legal interpretations have become often cited classics.

Link to Legal Interpretation Search Index on FAA Website:

Using the Google search engine directly to search for a particular FAA legal interpretation may often not find the proper document directly. Use the FAA’s official search page instead to look for a particular topic or document:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/

You can type in name and year of the legal interpretation if you have seen it referenced in a different legal interpretation, or you can search for a topic. Searching for an older legal interpretation will often bring up related more recent ones (because the citation of the older one appears in the newer interpretations), while searching for the most recent one will not bring up the earlier legal interpretations. Keep this in mind when trying to efficiently search multiple references in a legal interpretation, as the search strategy is opposite to the case of academic papers where citations are hyperlinked.

List of Selected FAA Legal Interpretations of Various Topics

This page highlights a few FAA legal interpretations that we found particularly interesting for general aviation pilots, students, and CFIs. They often address subtleties of flight training and flight time logging issues. For a comprehensive list of FAA legal interpretations, please visit the FAA website.

Direct links are given below to the actual legal interpretations on the FAA website. The appended brief summaries with each legal interpretation are just an unofficial content overview written by us to help you find the legal interpretation you are looking for. Always follow the link to look up the original text of the FAA legal interpretation on the FAA website for any topic of interest; do not rely on our summary in any way. The legal interpretations are roughly grouped by topic below, but keep in mind that many of them ask several different questions about vastly different topics, and they were simply listed below under the topic which subjectively seemed most relevant.

Aerobatics and Parachutes

This section lists FAA legal interpretations related to aerobatics and parachutes in one form or another.

14 CFR §91.303 and §91.307 relate to aerobatics and wearing parachutes, respectively. But their application is not always completely straightforward, in particular how they interrelate, since the former paragraph does not use the word “parachute” and the later paragraph does not use the word “aerobatics”. Furthermore, only §91.307 gives specific bank and pitch angle limitations, while §91.303 is rather vague about what constitutes aerobatics.

§91.307(d) specifies that any maneuver which is required on an FAA practical test can be flown without parachutes, if the maneuver is taught by a CFI. Advisory Circular AC 61-67C, “Stall and Spin Awareness Training,” used to establish (until and including Change 1) that this is the case regardless of whether the student is training for the certificate for which the maneuver is required or not. However, this sentence was removed in Change 2 of the AC, leaving it more ambiguous again.

Fortunately, there are a couple of FAA legal interpretations that clarify these points:

Finagin (2012): Finagin (2012) essentially states – paraphrased more broadly – that all maneuvers required on an FAA practical test, which are exempt from the parachute requirement by §91.307(d), are also not considered to constitute “aerobatics” in the sense of §91.303, as long as they are conducted as part of regular flight training (for a certificate) or in conjunction with unusual upset instruction, and not in conjunction with aerobatic flight instruction. For the exact nuances, please read the original text of the legal interpretation. While written specifically with regard to spins, Finagin (2012) can be generalized to any maneuver that appears on an FAA practical test. The demonstration stalls (in particular the accelerated and the cross-controlled stall) are therefore also not considered aerobatic maneuvers – regardless of what kind of attitude they result in after the stall break – if taught by a CFI in the context of training a regular pilot (not for aerobatics specifically). The purpose of all of this is to allow easy and reasonably safe practice of airman-certification-related maneuvers during regular flight training, without needing special equipment and practice areas/waivers.
Fitzpatrick (2018): This FAA legal interpretation reiterates what used to be in AC 61-67C before Change 2, that spin training (and other maneuvers appearing on any FAA practical test) can be given without parachutes, regardless of whether the student is training for the particular certificate for which the maneuver is required. Fitzpatrick (2018) also specifies that the student is considered to be a passenger during spin training, not a crew member (in a single-pilot airplane), and thus is exempt from wearing a parachute only by specific instruction exemption §91.307(d).
Mostofizadeh (2013): This legal interpretation states that, because there is no rating or endorsement required for formation flight (and aerobatics), these forms of flight are beyond the teaching privileges of the CFI certificate and are therefore not regarded to constitute official flight instruction in the eyes of the FAA. One can infer from this that it is irrelevant, whether your aerobatics coach has a CFI certificate or not. This is not surprising, given that aerobatics is not part of the FAA’s CFI training curriculum, and there is no official aerobatics instructor designation in the United States.

Logging pilot-in-command (PIC) time (14 CFR §61.51(e))

There is a distinct difference between logging PIC time and acting as PIC, which can lead to confusion with two pilots on board, when the non-flying pilot acts as PIC. The FAA legal interpretations below specify when the flying pilot and the pilot acting as PIC can log PIC flight time. They illuminate the intricate interplay of 14 CFR §61.51(e)(1)(i) (rated pilot who is the sole manipulator of controls), §61.51(e)(3) (flight instructor giving flight training), and §61.51(e)(1)(iii) in conjunction with §91.109(c) (safety pilot).

Definition: Note that the term “rated,” as used in § 61.51(e) refers to the pilot holding the appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required) on their pilot certificate. See Knight II (June 3, 1999), Herman (May 21, 2009), Speranza (Dec. 4, 2009). Morgan (2013) reiterates this.

Herman (2009): A Private Pilot flying a complex, high-performance, or tailwheel airplane can log flight time as PIC under §61.51(e)(1)(i) even if the pilot does not have an complex/high-performance/tailwheel endorsement, because he/she is the sole manipulator of controls and rated as a pilot in the category and class on his/her pilot certificate. The pilot may not act as PIC however without the endorsement, so an appropriately rated pilot with an endorsement needs to be on board to act as PIC. The acting PIC on board may not log the flight time, unless a specific regulation in 14 CFR §61.51(e) allows him/her to do so. For most general aviation pilots, there are two primary ways to log PIC time as the acting PIC if not manipulating the controls themselves: a) use §61.51(e)(3) which allows CFIs providing flight training to log the time as PIC, b) find a way to activate §61.51(e)(iii), which is a provision for operations which require more than one pilot (explicitly by 14 CFR, not because of insurance requirements or insufficient qualification of the first pilot). In order to activate the latter, you must find some other regulation requiring a second pilot and conduct the flight under that regulation. The safety pilot regulation §91.109(c) is such a regulation requiring a second pilot, and satisfies the requirement to make §61.51(e)(iii) applicable: if the first pilot wears a view-limiting device and the flight is conducted under VFR (meteorological conditions; flight plan type is irrelevant), then the acting PIC can log the time as PIC as well.
Speranza (2009): Logging of PIC time under 14 C.F.R. §61.51(e)(1)(i); difference between logging PIC time and acting as PIC; can pilot/safety pilot pair both log PIC in IMC? No, only in VMC with one pilot under the hood. Acting PIC has no inherent right to log PIC time, unless a specific paragraph allows him/her to (e.g. if his/she is a safety pilot for hood work or an instructor teaching), or the aircraft requires more than one crew member according to the FARs. Once the airplane enters IMC, the safety pilot role is terminated (because there are no visual tasks to be performed). (Similarly, an ASEL rated Private Pilot flying a tailwheel airplane does not need to have a tailwheel endorsement to log PIC time, but the required acting PIC on board with a tailwheel endorsement cannot log the time concurrently, unless he/she is a CFI conducting flight training.)
Murphy (2015): This FAA legal interpretation asserts that a pilot is sole manipulator of controls even when using an autopilot, as managing the autopilot counts as manipulating the controls, despite the autopilots sophistication. (Also upholds Krug (2014) and Gossman (2011) for left-hand traffic patterns.)
Dick (2016): Logging PIC time under 14 CFR §61.51(e)(1)(iv).
Crowe (2013): Logging PIC time towards an additional rating in a new aircraft category or class: the pilot must be the sole occupant of the aircraft in order to log PIC time in a new category or class, because she/he is not rated in the new category/class yet, and thus does not satisfy 14 CFR 61.51(e)(1)(i). The endorsement required by 14 CFR 61.31(d) to act as PIC on solo flights in the new category/class during training (which unlike a student pilot solo endorsement does not expire, see Beard 2015), does not change this fact.

Logging Cross-Country Flight Time in Safety Pilot Scenarios

The four legal interpretations were published together in 2009 and address which pilot gets to log cross-country flight time in the scenario where a cross-country flight is performed with one pilot manipulating the controls under the hood (i.e. wearing view-limiting device), while the required safety pilot occupies the other seat. Let us start more broadly first, and get to cross-country flight time subsequently:

Logging Flight Time: For general flight time logging, the following applies. The pilot manipulating the controls logs flight time for the entire time they are manipulating the controls. The safety pilot logs flight time only for the time the other pilot was wearing a view-limiting device.

Logging PIC Flight Time: The pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls always automatically logs pilot-in-command (PIC) flight time under 14 CFR §61.51(e)(i) (provided he is rated in aircraft category and class, of course). The safety pilot logs PIC flight time if the pilots elect that the safety pilot acts as pilot in command (and logs PIC under 14 CFR §61.51(e)(iii)) (cf. previous section above). If, on the other hand, the pilot manipulating the controls acts as pilot in command, then the safety pilot logs second-in-command (SIC) flight time.

Logging Cross-Country Flight Time: Cross-country flight time is defined in 14 CFR §61.1(b), and differs between applications. Who gets to log cross-country flight time on a flight with a pilot manipulating the controls under the hood and a safety pilot is regulated by the following four FAA legal interpretations:

Gebhart (2009): Only the pilot who is logging flight time for the entire flight may log cross-country time. This is the pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls. The safety pilot can log only flight time for the portion of the flight, when the pilot manipulating the controls is wearing a view-limiting device. Thus, the safety pilot cannot log cross-country time, because he is not logging flight time for the entire flight (presumably unless the flying pilot is under the hood continuously from engine start to finish, doing zero-visibility takeoffs and landings).
Hilliard (2009): If during a cross-country flight, the pilot manipulating the controls under the hood and the safety pilot switch roles during the flight, neither pilot may log cross-country flight time, because neither pilot is logging flight time for the entire flight. (The only way out of this would be to split up the flight into different legs between different airports where the role switches occurred, if they are sufficiently far apart, and log them as separate flights , using Van Zanen (2009).)
Van Zanen (2009): A pilot may split a flight consisting of several legs into multiple flights in their logbook, even if the airplane did not shut down at the different airports of landing. This is useful, for instance, when no point of landing is farther away than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure, but some points of landing are farther than 50 nm from other points of landing. The pilot is allowed to log the first leg separately, starting a new flight at the point of first landing, for which a different point of landing is more than 50 nautical miles away. In this example, the pilot cannot log cross-country time for the first leg, but they can log cross-country flight time for the remaining legs. In contrast, if the entire flight is logged as one flight, then no cross-country time can be logged for any portion of the flight.
Glenn (2009): Various PIC/SIC scenarios related to Gebhart (2009).

Note on logging cross-country time in general: Note that if a pilot gets to log cross-country time on a flight in accordance with 14 CFR Part 61 and the above legal interpretations, the cross-country time is the same as “flight time” in the sense of 14 CFR 61.1, i.e. from start to stop of the aircraft, not just the actual airborne time on the cross-country flight (see Grannis-2 (2016)).

Issues surrounding the Commercial Pilot aeronautical experience requirement 14 CFR 61.129(a)(4): solo time or performing duties of pilot in command with instructor on board

14 CFR 61.129(a)(4) for the Commercial Pilot single-engine airplane aeronautical experience requirement (and its equivalent counterparts for multi-engine, helicopter, and other categories and classes) asks for 10 hours of solo flight time or while performing the duties of pilot in command with an authorized instructor on board. This raises several questions: 1) can the 10 hours be a combination of solo and authorized instructor on board, 2) how do the pilot and instructor each log the time in such a case, and 3) can there be an additional passenger if an authorized instructor is on board? The following FAA legal interpretations address these questions:

Grannis (2016): The pilot (Commercial Pilot trainee) must strictly choose between performing all 10 hours solo or performing all 10 hours with an authorized instructor on board. It is not allowed to do a few hours solo and the rest of the 10 hours with an authorized instructor on board, because there is no “or any combination thereof” language in the regulation.
Kuhn (2014): If choosing the option with an authorized instructor on board, the pilot (Commercial pilot trainee) can log the time as PIC, provided she/he is rated in the category and class of aircraft already (i.e. has a Private Pilot certificate with such a rating). She/he does not log it as dual instruction received, because it is not considered instruction (as it stands in lieu of solo). The logbook should clearly show that the flight was performed specifically to satisfy 61.129(a)(4). The CFI can log it simultaneously as PIC according to 14 CFR 61.53(e)(3), because she/he is acting as an authorized instructor on board.
Olshock-3 (2007): Additional passengers are allowed on board if it is flown with an authorized instructor, because it is already not solo. In addition, the instructor may instruct the other passengers.

Counting instrument training time towards aeronautical experience requirements for Instrument Rating and Commercial Pilot Certificate (14 CFR §61.65(d) and §61.129(a)(3)(i))

The section collects FAA legal interpretations which discuss whether instrument training time for an Instrument Rating can be counted toward the instrument requirement for the Commercial Pilot certificate. Also discussed are the required CFI qualifications (CFII or not) for instrument instruction given to Private/Commercial Pilot certificate and Instrument Rating candidates, and what parts of the instrument experience for the instrument rating must be given by a CFII (as opposed flying with a regular CFI or safety pilot).

Theriault (2010): Does an instrument rating meet the requirement §61.129(a)(3)(i) of 10 hours of instrument training for Commercial Pilot Certificate? It depends on what was done and how it was logged. (Unrelated, the legal interpretation also reiterates that an airplane on an IFR flight plan with the remark “VMC only” does not need to be IFR certified, see also FAA Order 8900.1, paragraph 5-439.)
Theriault (2011): followup to Theriault (2010).
Hartzell (2010): There is no exact equivalence between the training required for an instrument rating under §61.65 and the aeronautical experience requirements under §61.129, so there is no guarantee that an Instrument Rating satisfies all of the requirements of the 10 hours of instrument training needed for the Commercial Pilot Certificate, unless it is specifically marked as such. (However, it usually does at least partially, and often completely. Furthermore, examiners usually treat this issue fairly liberally.)
Oord (2018): Simultaneous counting of instrument training for instrument rating and commercial pilot certificate is allowed, as long as it is clearly logged in a way that shows that the instrument training also met the commercial requirement of 61.129(a)(3).
Grayson-2 (2010): Instrument Airplane rating needed on Flight Instructor certificate to conduct “instrument training” (towards a candidate’s Instrument Rating or Commercial Pilot certificate), but not needed for basic instrument maneuvers (3 hours) for Private Pilot training. Furthermore, category and class of aircraft must be on both the Commercial Pilot certificate as well as the Flight Instructor certificate, for an instructor to conduct “instrument training” in an aircraft.
Kortokrax (2012): Reiterates Grayson-2 (2010) that a CFII providing “instrument training” must have category and class ratings as well as a corresponding (category-specific) instrument rating on her/his flight instructor certificate.
Beard (2012): The rating requirements on a flight instructor certificate listed in Grayson-2 (2010) and Kortokrax (2012) apply to a CFII conducting “instrument training” in a flight simulator, FTD, or ATD, as well, because these devices simulate an aircraft.
Jablecki (2016): In contrast to Grayson-2 (2010) valid for airplanes, an Instrument Helicopter rating is NOT required on a Flight Instructor certificate to give the five hours of instrument dual in a helicopter for the Commercial Pilot Helicopter certificate, because Section 61.129(c)(3)(i) only asks for “control and maneuvering of a helicopter solely by reference to instruments” (similarly to the phrasing for Private Pilot certificates, which can be given by non-CFIIs), not for “instrument training” (as is the case for Commercial Pilot Airplane certificates, 61.129(a)(3)(i)). Only “instrument training” requires an Instrument Rating on the Flight Instructor certificate, in the appropriate category (and class).
Grayson-3 (2010): Explanations for how instrument training with an instructor must be done with a CFII (15 hours), and how much instrument flight can be done with a safety pilot (remaining 25 hours, for a total of 40 hours). Regular CFI can give the 3 hours of instrument time required for Private Pilot (is not considered “instrument training” for Instrument Rating/Commercial Pilot certificate, but rather only “basic instrument maneuvers” and “control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments”).
Rohlfing (2016): The 3 hours of “control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments” – required by 14 CFR 61.109(a)(3) for the Private Pilot (Airplane) certificate which can be given by a CFI who is not a CFII – can be counted towards the total 40 hours of instrument time required for an instrument rating by 61.65(d)(2), provided that these three (or more) hours are not counted towards the 15 hours of “instrument training” specifically required to be given by a CFII with an instrument-airplane rating on his CFI certificate. (Side note: It is also possible to train for your Private Pilot certificate and Instrument Rating concurrently, provided the instrument training is given by a CFII.)
Sun (2011): The 2-hour commercial daytime and nighttime dual cross-country flights required for the Commercial Pilot certificate can be conducted under IFR and can be double-counted towards the instrument requirements for the Commercial Pilot certificate at the discretion of the instructor.

Simultaneous counting of flight and training time towards aeronautical experience requirements for different airman certificates (§61.109 and §61.129)

The issue of “interweaving” training at different certificate levels is explored, e.g. whether a Student Pilot can do his long cross-country flight for the Commercial Pilot Certificate before he obtains his Private Pilot Certificate, and whether passing a Private Pilot tractical test while training for a Commercial Pilot Certificate invalidates previous Commercial training. Note that Asp (2015) seems to contradict the other legal interpretations, unless special provisions in its interpretation are assumed. Also note that simultaneous training for a Private Pilot Certificate and an Instrument Rating are allowed (the Instrument Rating is not a different pilot certificate level, it is an additional rating on a pilot certificate, so the legal interpretations below do not address this case).

Theriault (2010): Can flights done during Private Pilot training be counted to satisfy specific Commercial Pilot Certificate aeronautical experience requirements in §61.129(a)(3)? No, “the applicant must satisfy that requirement while training for a Commercial Pilot Certificate (see §61.127), not while training for a different certificate.”
Murphy (2011): A Student Pilot (by definition a pilot not holding a Private Pilot Certificate in any category yet) may not count a flight to meet a specific commercial pilot requirement (however, compare to McLennan (2015) below). Reinforces Theriault (2010). (Unrelated, this FAA legal interpretation also addresses anti-collision light use: from before engine start to stop, with individual components turned off by PIC only in the interest of safety (not as a matter of arbitrary choice).)
McLellan (2015): A Private Pilot rated in one category can train directly for Commercial Pilot in another category (skipping the Private Pilot stage in the new category). Incidentally passing a Private Pilot practical test in the new category along the way to the Commercial Pilot certificate does not invalidate the whole training to count towards the Commercial Pilot Certificate, as long as all the training was done from the beginning to commercial standards (this situation is unlike in Theriault (2010) above, where a Student Pilot with no ratings is not allowed to train for Commercial Pilot and Private Pilot simultaneously; it is therefore consistent with the above legal interpretations).
Asp (2015): The FAA legal interpretation states, “a pilot is permitted to log training time towards a commercial pilot certificate prior to obtaining a private pilot certificate,” because the “applicant’s eligibility for a commercial pilot certificate is assessed on the date the person applies for the practical test, not the date that the pilot begins training for that certificate” – at least for a balloon. This seems to be directly contradicting Theriault (2010) and Murphy (2011) above, unless either 1) the pilot in this legal interpretation is assumed to be a Private Pilot already in another aircraft category/class (see McLellan (2015)), or 2) the pilot is somehow allowed to declare at the beginning of training, what the goal of the entire training is (Private or Commercial), regardless of current certificate held. Also states that FAA Knowledge Test for Commercial Pilot Certificate can be taken at any time, including prior to obtaining a Private Pilot Certificate (and it remains valid for 24 months).

Recent flight experience of three takeoffs and landings within preceding 90 days to carry passengers (14 CFR §61.57(a)(1) and (b)(1))

The issue here is whether a CFI who has not done landings recently can fly with a student (i.e. whether the student counts as a passenger or not) and, separately, whether three landings done by a student also count for the accompanying CFI as performed landing to meet the recency requirement for carrying passengers. For most CFIs this is probably particularly relevant for night flying.

Kortokrax (2006): A student does not count as a passenger for the purpose of 14 CFR §61.57(a)(1) and (b)(1): the CFI is allowed to instruct the student even if the CFI has not conducted three takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days (day and night).
Olshock-2 (2007): Explicitly extends Kortokrax (2006) above to student pilots not rated in the category and class of aircraft. Also specifies that a second student sitting in the back seat (to swap seats later during the flight) would be considered a passenger, even if the second student watches the flight for instructional purposes.
Collins (2012): A CFI may not count the landings flown by a student at the controls towards the CFI’s own three landings to meet the 3-landings-within-90-days requirement to carry passengers on a later flight, because the CFI was not the sole manipulator of the controls during the landing (required by 14 CFR §61.57(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(i)). The CFI can count only landings which the CFI explicitly demonstrated to the student by flying the aircraft him/herself. This is in contrast to FAA legal interpretation Levy (2008), which allows a CFI to log instrument approaches (IAPs) flown by the student for the purpose of the CFI’s own instrument currency, as long as these approaches have been conducted in IMC (satisfying the IMC requirements specified in FAA InFO 15012) – “performed and logged” in 14 CFR §61.51(c)(1) does not necessarily require the CFI to be at the controls for IAPs, only not being able to see and being able to log instrument time.
Mostofizadeh (2013): Prohibition to carry passengers for hire during formation flight vs paid formation flight training. For formation flight Kortokrax (2006) does not apply, because no endorsement, certificate or rating needs to be issued for formation flight, and thus formation flight training is not considered student instruction within the limitations of a CFI certificate; however, the student can still hire an experience pilot to help him specifically with learning formation flight, with the caveat that the experienced pilot cannot act as PIC, which is why the student must be rated in the aircraft.

Regulatory requirement to make left turns at untowered airports in Class G airspace (14 CFR §91.126(a) and (b)(1))

Murphy (2009): Concerns 14 CFR §91.126(b)(1): even circle-to-land approaches must be conducted in the direction of the airport traffic pattern (to the left if not specified by airport markings otherwise). The pilot must comply with the regulation and does not have the discretion to determine which direction is better for his/her circle-to-land approach based on circumstances (e.g. because the wing blocks the view). On a separate topic, this interpretation also discusses student pilots logging PIC time during their FAA Practical Tests.
Gossman (2011): Making a right turn to enter a traffic pattern is allowed even if the traffic pattern itself is to the left (e.g. the normal recommended right turn from a 45-degree entry midfield to downwind, see AIM). 14 CFR §91.126(b)(1) primarily applies once you are in the traffic pattern approaching to land.
Collins (2013): Upholds Murphy (2009), but corrects that ATC does not have authority in Class G airspace to authorize deviations from the left-turn regulation. The “otherwise authorized or required” exception is very narrow and does not include convenience. Noncompliance with the left-turn regulation in the traffic pattern can lead to a suspension of the pilot’s certificate.
Krug (2014): Concerns 14 CFR §91.126(a) and §91.126(b)(1) that turns at untowered airports in Class G airspace are to be made to the left unless indicated by airport markings or “otherwise authorized or required”. This legal interpretation specifies what “authorized and required” means. In particular, ATC has no authority to do so at an airport in Class G airspace (only at untowered airports where Class E goes all the way to the ground, see 14 CFR §91.127(a)), because it does not control traffic in Class G airspace. An acceptable authorization would have to come from an instrument approach procedure or other FAA regulation. This includes circling approaches after an instrument approach, which cannot be done in an arbitrary direction as stated in Murphy (2009) (the images in the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook do not constitute a general authorization).

Clarification of the Exceptions in 14 CFR § 119.1(e)

Grannis (2017): Introductory/discovery flights, student instruction towards a certificate or a purpose outside of Part 61, nonstop commercial air tour exception, and related topics whether a Commercial Pilot needs a Part 119 commercial operator authorization to conduct the flights.