Going for my Recreational Pilot's Certificate... questions

Chesterspal

Chesterspal

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
94
Display Name
Display name:
Chesterspal
Hell to all and thank you for any useful advice you can provide me.

I'm well along with my pilots training but feel at this point given my age and needs and desires, going on to get a private pilots certificate will be more or less worthless for me. I can always pursue that later, if I so desire. My only interest is flying for fun. No night flying and no long cross country flying. I only want to go up in good weather and fly VFR around my local area in my little Cessna 150. The 50 mile allowed radius is more than enough for my needs.

That said, we can move on to my questions.

14 CFR 61.101 articles 1, 2 and 3 talk about the "departure airport". Right now, I take lessons at an airport about 25 miles from where I plan to park my plane after I complete the certificate. I'm on my 3rd freelance instructor and would like to stay with that person, if I can. We have not yet discussed my new intentions so I'm just trying to figure out my options.

Can I continue at my current airport and complete the check ride there or is it best (or necessary) that I move to what will be my "departure airport", now, and sign up with a "local" CFI?

(Actually, to an airport close to my future home airport since there are no CFI's there.)

I suppose I can not talk about moving and just stay at this airport until after I get my license... then move. Would that then require me to get some kind of endorsement from a CFI for the new airport, I wonder?

Thanks for the help on this.
 
61.101 has no bearing on you BEFORE you get your certificate. You can get dual just about anywhere you chose. Solo flight is covered under the STUDENT pilot limitations in 61.87 and 61.89 (same as if you were a private pilot student).

The big question is why the recreational certificate? The things you omit from the private certificate are typically the easy things (XC flight). Most people spend most of their time on landings.
 
Seems like you're looking toward the future after you receive your rec pilot cert. Both your airports would be covered under the 50 NM endorsement; however, in the long run, you'd be better off incorporating the training needed to get the >50NM endorsement. That said, if you just want the 50NM endorsement, it would kind of depend on which direction you might want to fly in the future. For example, area C is NOT within 50NM of airport A where you train now and get your 50NM endorsement. However, it is within 50NM of airport B where you plan to relocate the plane after you have your recreational pilot license. So if you move the plane to airport B and now want to fly to area C (which is >50NM away from airport A where you received your 50NM endorsement), then technically, yes, you would need another 50NM endorsement from a CFI to fly to area C.

My recommendation would be that, during your training with your CFI, either get the cross country training/endorsement for >50NM or get training within 50NM of airport A and get training within 50 NM of airport B and get the endorsements for flight within 50NM of both airport A and B and you should be covered for most of where you'll likely fly.

(b) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight within 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, provided that person has...

(c) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight that exceeds 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, provided that person has...

AC61-65H

A.27 Recreational pilot to operate within 50 NM of the airport where training was
received: § 61.101(b).
I certify that [First name, MI, Last name] has received the required training of
§ 61.101(b). I have determined that [he or she] is competent to operate at the [name of
airport].

A.28 Recreational pilot to act as pilot in command on a flight that exceeds 50 NM of the
departure airport: § 61.101(c).
I certify that [First name, MI, Last name] has received the required cross-country training of § 61.101(c). I have determined that [he or she] is proficient in cross-country flying of part 61 subpart E.
 
Last edited:
I never got the idea of restricting to 50nm. Not saving that much money on training. Not saving that much time or learning either. To me, it handcuffs more then it offers.
 
50nm isn’t that far in an airplane and being restricted to that is going to get boring really quickly. Consider the little bit more a private certificate will get you. Once you have it, you’ll have it forever and you can do so much more with it.
 
benyflyguy said:
I never got the idea of restricting to 50nm. Not saving that much money on training. Not saving that much time or learning either. To me, it handcuffs more then it offers.
Click to expand...
Because the aeronautical experience and the flight test omit the tasks on XC navigation. The recreational certificate was an attempt to decrease the cost of getting the license but it wasn't overly well reasoned out. If it allowed medical-less flight (like the later sport pilot) it might have been more popular.

Oddly, the flight instructor lobby whined so much about the lost instruction business the certificate was predicted to cause them, the FAA through them a bone and added the annual flight review requirement. Fortunately, the latter kept having its effective date rolled forward until they finally deep sixed the whole concept.
 
There is a reason after all these years so few have a Rec pilot license. You do almost everything needed for a PPL, you get over the 3rd class medical hurdle, and then you end up with more restrictions placed on you than a Sport Pilot (except for not having to fly only a sport plane).

If you get the rec license, you will have to re do the PPL written and new check ride for the PPL. Your hours flying, studying for the written, and the check ride will be almost identical to the PPL check ride. (You'll have to do a few cross country flights and a few hours at night). Get the PPL and then just fly locally if you wish, not worrying about breaking the rules if you fly a few miles too far.

For the year ending 2017, there were
  • 174,883 private pilots
  • 5,157 sport pilots
  • 220 recreational pilots
 
Copied from the Chesapeake SportPilot web page: https://chesapeakesportpilot.com/which-rating/


Recreational Pilot Certificate: Abbreviated or Full

Pros: Quickest way to earn a pilot certificate. Allows pilot to fly almost all single engine airplanes anywhere in the country in the daytime with one passenger.

Cons: Requires an FAA medical certificate.

The recreational pilot certificate is the most misunderstood and underutilized pilot certificate offered. In its abbreviated form, a pilot simply needs to take a knowledge test attain proficiency at a handful of airborne maneuvers, solo the aircraft, and learn short and soft field take off and landing technique before taking their FAA exam. The FAA minimum flight time requirement for this is 30 hours and this is realistic for many.

In its abbreviated form, pilots may only fly near their home airport but this restriction is easily lifted either during the pilot's initial training or after the pilot FAA exam by the pilot taking training with a flight instructor which covers basic navigation and cross country planning. In its full form (including the navigation and planning training) recreational pilot training is identical to sport pilot training but offers higher privileges.

————

Back to my opinion: As someone who went from Sport Pilot to PPL, I would say there is nothing wrong with starting with rec pilot and then getting a private certificate later if you’re so inclined. I think recommending “just get your ppl” suggests it’s a mistake to go rec first. I would say do whatever you want to get in the air. If you really like it, you can always step up later. Nothing wrong with more training.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with it. Indeed, I might even recommend it if it weren't for the corrupt, dysfunctional system that the examination designee system is. In most areas, you'll waste $500 and an interminable delay doing an extra unnecessary checkride.
 
Like @Cluemeister , I also did Sport first and then upgraded to Private. I required an SI on my medical, and that made Sport a good choice initially.

The Rec ticket isn’t a bad option, especially if you get a cross-country endorsement to eliminate the 50 mile limit. The only advantage it has over Sport, though, is allowing you to fly larger planes like Cherokees and 172s, still limited to a single passenger. If you plan to take trips and need to carry a passenger plus luggage this will be important. If not, you might as well just do Sport.

All things considered, for me the choice was really Sport vs Private. Rec, since it requires a medical, was almost as much hassle as Private but with far fewer privileges.

I am skeptical that Rec will save you much time and money compared to Private. The things that take the most time to learn (landings and air work) are the same for both.
 
After your third flight, you will have seen everything within 50 miles, and will get quickly bored with flying.
Get your PPL.
 
flyingron said:
There's nothing wrong with it. Indeed, I might even recommend it if it weren't for the corrupt, dysfunctional system that the examination designee system is. In most areas, you'll waste $500 and an interminable delay doing an extra unnecessary checkride.
Click to expand...

But this is what the pilot community wanted. Remember, no one wanted to take a checkride with those evil mean FAA Inspectors (even though it was free) and instead wanted a friendly DPE (even though it cost).

Be careful what you wish for. ;)
 
Interesting replies, but still no answer to my original question. Perhaps someone can re-read it and reply.

I already have my 3rd class medical in hand from an FAA flight doc so no issues there. I will be taking the full ground school FAA test probably next month. That's the full 60 questions not the limited 30 for the Rec. Cert.

The Rec Cert does not prevent me from going on to the Private Cert later on, if I want to. The Sport Cert means buying an expensive sport plane, which I cannot afford nor do I want. For me, my pokey little C150M, with my dog by my side, is all I need at 66 years of age. I cannot see well enough to fly at night nor do I need to and 50 miles will reach anywhere I care to fly.

Have a friend to owns a 1940's Cub. Asked him the other day where he flys to.

"I don't go anywhere" was his reply.

No... I asked?

"I just go up and then I come back down", he added.

So, what's wrong with that?
 
Last edited:
I believe your question was answered in the first two replies.

But to simplify:

Get your license with your present CFI and airport.

Fly 25 miles with your CFI to your new airport, demonstrate whatever he wants to see, get a new endorsement for the second airport.

Fly the CFI home to the original airport.

Fly yourself and the plane to your new home airport.

Easily done in one afternoon.
 
This is kind of what I was hoping would be the way to work this. Not having to start over with a 4th CFI...

Thanks much!
 
While you have your CFI's attention, why not go ahead and get the XC endorsement, too? It will open up more options for you.
 
If anyone knows of a source for a Recreational Pilot syllabus, please let me know. From what I have been able to piece together, it follows the PP flight training but stops short of night flying and extended cross country then picks up for short field TOL.

Not sure if the hood (simulated instrument) sections are needed or not. This part is not clear.
 
Chesterspal said:
If anyone knows of a source for a Recreational Pilot syllabus, please let me know. From what I have been able to piece together, it follows the PP flight training but stops short of night flying and extended cross country then picks up for short field TOL.

Not sure if the hood (simulated instrument) sections are needed or not. This part is not clear.
Click to expand...


Regardless of whether hood work is required or not, DO IT! Including unusual attitudes. For safety's sake.
 
Chesterspal said:
If anyone knows of a source for a Recreational Pilot syllabus, please let me know. From what I have been able to piece together, it follows the PP flight training but stops short of night flying and extended cross country then picks up for short field TOL.

Not sure if the hood (simulated instrument) sections are needed or not. This part is not clear.
Click to expand...

Attached are a couple from Sporty's. Looks like flight solely by reference to instruments is not in the attached rec pilot syllabus. It would be covered in the transition to PvPT.

However, I do agree that at least 1 flight with training regarding recovery from unusual attitudes solely by reference to instruments should be included. Could save your life one day.
 

Attachments

  • tcorecreationalpilot201106s.pdf
    369.4 KB · Views: 2
  • tcoptssgrecreationalprivatepilot201109tcos.pdf
    308.1 KB · Views: 1
Thanks, Craigd31, for those PDF's. I did find the book on Sporty's site and placed an order for the current version.

I have had a few sessions with unusual attitude, already... but thanks for the suggestions it be included in the training.
 
I can't believe there are actually written syllabus' for this. I would certainly check their accuracy against the PTS (which likely hasn't been updated either. )
 
Sporty's has everything.

Here is your syllabus, although you should review with your CFI to make sure he/she is aligned with it.
https://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/s...lot-training-course-outline-and-syllabus.html

This I have found to be VERY helpful as well (applies to PPL, Rec, and Sport).
https://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/sporty-s-private-sport-recreational-maneuvers-guide.html

Don't know how much ground training you still need.
https://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/sporty-s-recreational-private-pilot-ground-lesson-guide.html
 
Thanks, Peter, for the test outline. I will need to find out what the check ride person for my airport uses so we are on the same page when it comes time to take the test.

I have the Sporty's syllabus shown above by WDD, on order. Will need to coordinate that with my current CFI. Not sure whether he is open to training for Rec Pilot or not so this may become an issue.

I feel I'm bucking the trend here quite a bit. Rec Pilot seems to be something no one wants to discuss as an option for flying when for some, like myself, it is all one really needs.
 
Chesterspal said:
Interesting replies, but still no answer to my original question. Perhaps someone can re-read it and reply....
Click to expand...

Chesterspal said:
...I feel I'm bucking the trend here quite a bit. Rec Pilot seems to be something no one wants to discuss as an option for flying when for some, like myself, it is all one really needs.
Click to expand...
Your mind seems made up. Good luck.
 
Chesterspal said:
Thanks, Peter, for the test outline. I will need to find out what the check ride person for my airport uses so we are on the same page when it comes time to take the test.

I have the Sporty's syllabus shown above by WDD, on order. Will need to coordinate that with my current CFI. Not sure whether he is open to training for Rec Pilot or not so this may become an issue.

I feel I'm bucking the trend here quite a bit. Rec Pilot seems to be something no one wants to discuss as an option for flying when for some, like myself, it is all one really needs.
Click to expand...


You should be prepared for the likelihood that neither your CFI or your DPE have ever done a Rec Certificate, discuss your plans well ahead of time so that they can prepare for it.
 
Cluemeister said:
Copied from the Chesapeake SportPilot web page: https://chesapeakesportpilot.com/which-rating/


Recreational Pilot Certificate: Abbreviated or Full

Pros: Quickest way to earn a pilot certificate. Allows pilot to fly almost all single engine airplanes anywhere in the country in the daytime with one passenger.

Cons: Requires an FAA medical certificate.

The recreational pilot certificate is the most misunderstood and underutilized pilot certificate offered. In its abbreviated form, a pilot simply needs to take a knowledge test attain proficiency at a handful of airborne maneuvers, solo the aircraft, and learn short and soft field take off and landing technique before taking their FAA exam. The FAA minimum flight time requirement for this is 30 hours and this is realistic for many.

In its abbreviated form, pilots may only fly near their home airport but this restriction is easily lifted either during the pilot's initial training or after the pilot FAA exam by the pilot taking training with a flight instructor which covers basic navigation and cross country planning. In its full form (including the navigation and planning training) recreational pilot training is identical to sport pilot training but offers higher privileges.

————

Back to my opinion: As someone who went from Sport Pilot to PPL, I would say there is nothing wrong with starting with rec pilot and then getting a private certificate later if you’re so inclined. I think recommending “just get your ppl” suggests it’s a mistake to go rec first. I would say do whatever you want to get in the air. If you really like it, you can always step up later. Nothing wrong with more training.
Click to expand...

It’s a great way to waste $1000 for the additional written test, practical test, and dual test preparation plus your time preparing for an additional written and practical test.
 
If Rec works out great for the OP, great. If not, he'll figure it out. He's made up his mind with input from others. It's his choice.

Given he's interested in getting into the air and he's decided this is the best way for him, I say congrats on setting a goal and working up a plan to get to it.
 
I don't think the money difference will be that great.... if I ever decide to get additional endorsements like cross country, for instance. That's really the only endorsement I can see possibly wanting at some later date and I do not have to get another check ride to do that.

BTW: I plan to take the full private pilot written test again (took it 33 years ago and passed with flying colors) so I'll be good either way.

No, I have not made up my mind. Still in training for the full PP certificate.

My current CFI told me today he will not teach the Rec course. Admitted he did not even know what it consisted of.

I think this industry needs a reboot. They offer the full PP and they are now pushing the Sport Pilot certificate, which offers less than what Rec offers, and with a 100K + investment in a plane.

More people might take a closer look at the training if they were aware of this Rec option and their ability to get into flying with an under 20K plane. Not everyone needs to fly at night (many older PP do not, anyway) nor do they plan to fly all over the country or go for their instrument rating. Why have to spend all the extra hours and pay for all this if you will never use it?

The issue is, it appears, many CFI's are not up to speed on Rec either. That's sad.

Rec is basically flying al a carte.
 
Chesterspal said:
Why have to spend all the extra hours and pay for all this if you will never use it?

The issue is, it appears, many CFI's are not up to speed on Rec either. That's sad.

Rec is basically flying al a carte.
Click to expand...


Well, that may be a bit of a misconception. Have you looked at what extra you would need to do between Rec and PP? I'm not familiar with the Rec req'ts, but I suspect it would come down to a handful of night landings, a XC dual and solo, and a night XC dual. Maybe another 6 or 8 hours.

When I upgraded from Sport to Private, I needed another hour or so of hood work, night landings, and night XC. That was it. Not much at all.

Few CFIs are up to speed on Rec because there's almost no demand for it.

I agree that training should be restructured, though. Start with a basic cert that covers non-complex planes, daytime VFR. Then add night, complex, high performance, etc., as endorsements. Forget the stupidity of passenger limits, 50 mile radius, 1320 lb MTOW, airspeed limits, etc., etc. Much of it is not enforceable anyway.
 
Chesterspal said:
I don't think the money difference will be that great.... if I ever decide to get additional endorsements like cross country, for instance. That's really the only endorsement I can see possibly wanting at some later date and I do not have to get another check ride to do that.

BTW: I plan to take the full private pilot written test again (took it 33 years ago and passed with flying colors) so I'll be good either way.
Click to expand...

If you take the Private Pilot written test, you can't use that for a Rec license. You'll need to take the Rec written test. (Yes, even though the PPL might be longer and cover everything the Rec would cover). Just remember that the written test expires in 2 years.

Chesterspal said:
My current CFI told me today he will not teach the Rec course. Admitted he did not even know what it consisted of.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, not surprised. When I first started I was looking at Sport Pilot. I could find no one to teach that. Part of the reason is no one had a Sport plane needed for the solo. But a Rec license would use the same plane as a PPL student would, almost the same curriculum, etc. But wait, there's more. Given the difficulty if getting a PPL DPE for the check ride, I fear you'd find no DPE to give you the test. Makes no sense, but given that there are only 200 Rec pilots in the US right now, I'm just not surprised the low awareness and engagement.

Chesterspal said:
I think this industry needs a reboot. They offer the full PP and they are now pushing the Sport Pilot certificate, which offers less than what Rec offers, and with a 100K + investment in a plane.

More people might take a closer look at the training if they were aware of this Rec option and their ability to get into flying with an under 20K plane. Not everyone needs to fly at night (many older PP do not, anyway) nor do they plan to fly all over the country or go for their instrument rating. Why have to spend all the extra hours and pay for all this if you will never use it?
Click to expand...

Many would agree with you that things could be rebooted, simplified.
 
Chesterspal said:
I don't think the money difference will be that great.... if I ever decide to get additional endorsements like cross country, for instance. That's really the only endorsement I can see possibly wanting at some later date and I do not have to get another check ride to do that.

BTW: I plan to take the full private pilot written test again (took it 33 years ago and passed with flying colors) so I'll be good either way.

No, I have not made up my mind. Still in training for the full PP certificate.

My current CFI told me today he will not teach the Rec course. Admitted he did not even know what it consisted of.

I think this industry needs a reboot. They offer the full PP and they are now pushing the Sport Pilot certificate, which offers less than what Rec offers, and with a 100K + investment in a plane.

More people might take a closer look at the training if they were aware of this Rec option and their ability to get into flying with an under 20K plane. Not everyone needs to fly at night (many older PP do not, anyway) nor do they plan to fly all over the country or go for their instrument rating. Why have to spend all the extra hours and pay for all this if you will never use it?

The issue is, it appears, many CFI's are not up to speed on Rec either. That's sad.

Rec is basically flying al a carte.
Click to expand...

Why are there only 220 Recreational Pilots more than 20 years after creation? That’s less than 15 a year.

Sports pilot falls into a different category because a medical is not required and many sports pilots don’t want to spend the money or go thru the hassle of a special issuance.
 
When doing a CFI exam, the REC cert isn't even something the FAA or DPE cover (at least I've never heard of them even talking about it, other than its existence).

Why would CFI's be familiar with a cert that they will likely never teach, have never done previously and in all likely hood will never even meet one of the 200+ people that have it? With those numbers you can't expect CFI's and DPE's to know it like the back of their hand, they are going to need to look some stuff up.

The rec cert was a lot more attractive until they bolted on the medical and all the restrictions.

We did have a lot of people training for sport pilot though. I thought that those rules were mostly right except for the weight limits. This restricted it to planes that don't exist for rent around here anymore, so anyone that got that cert has either had to upgrade the cert or purchase something, at least in this area.

The Basic med has helped a lot.
 
ja_user said:
Why would CFI's be familiar with a cert that they will likely never teach, have never done previously and in all likely hood will never even meet one of the 200+ people that have it? With those numbers you can't expect CFI's and DPE's to know it like the back of their hand, they are going to need to look some stuff up.
Click to expand...

Because it's the same exact training path as the private pilot sans the extra cross country, night flying and some of the hood work for basic instrument. There is no reason I can see for a CFI worth his salt not to know it.

When I spoke with my CFI yesterday, a fellow with a long time CFI history, he told me at a meeting of local CFI's held about five years ago it was decided, as a group, they would not offer to train someone looking to get a Rec pilot certificate.

Does that sound ethical to you?

In any case, I have found at least one school that is more than willing to teach it.

Apparently, he did not make it to that meeting : )

Still waiting to hear back from a few others.
 
Chesterspal said:
Because it's the same exact training path as the private pilot sans the extra cross country, night flying and some of the hood work for basic instrument. There is no reason I can see for a CFI worth his salt not to know it.

When I spoke with my CFI yesterday, a fellow with a long time CFI history, he told me at a meeting of local CFI's held about five years ago it was decided, as a group, they would not offer to train someone looking to get a Rec pilot certificate.

Does that sound ethical to you?

In any case, I have found at least one school that is more than willing to teach it.

Apparently, he did not make it to that meeting : )

Still waiting to hear back from a few others.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t even sound likely. Lol the local CFI meeting. Good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top