The #FAA requires a 70% to pass #pilot licensing tests.
This appears to be, in large part, because the tests are absolute garbage. They are ambiguously-worded, they have questions about ratings you're not even trying to get, and the charts they provide have larger margins of error than the gap between answers.
If this test weren't so incompetently assembled, they could require 90% to pass and have more qualified pilots as a result.
Another one follows this format:
"Are you required to follow [X] directive?"
Wanna know what the correct answer is?
"Yes, unless [X] directive says otherwise."
🤦♂️
To pass the test to get a pilot's license, you need to know the scientific names of each of the 23 different types of fog, and be able to write a dissertation on how and where and why each one forms.
When flying a plane under a VFR license, all you really need to know is that you should avoid fog.
I will literally never remember the difference between categories of aircraft with respect to the certification of aircraft and categories of aircraft with respect to the certification of airmen, which are somehow two totally different things.
🇳🇱
@LouisIngenthron Not even surprised...
Better yet, just fly a class of plane that requires no licensing of any kind!
@freemo Pretty sure that doesn't exist, unless you plan to remain only in class G airspace. I'm pretty sure you need to have *some kind* of license to act as pilot-in-command of any powered vehicle in controlled airspace.
Nope, in the USA there are classes of planes which require absolutely no license or training to fly. They are called "ultra lights"
As the following website points out:
> Even though you don't need any kind of license or certificate to fly ultralights, training should be considered absolutely mandatory.
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/learn-to-fly/comparing-pilot-types/how-to-become-an-ultralight-pilot
@freemo Like I thought. From the FAA:
"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."
And also:
"No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons."
Plus they have a fuel limit of 5 gallons, so those are basically toy planes anyway.
Thats a lot of words for saying "yea jeff, your right, there is a class of airplane you can fly without a license"
I mean your correct that this class of airplane is not allowed to be flown in certain areas, as with many classes of aircraft it has restrictions... but what I said remains correct, you can fly it without any license of any kind, so long as you follow the rules around where you can fly it.
@freemo Well, yeah, you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want, licensed or not, as long as you stay in uncontrolled class G airspace (usually under 1200 feet AGL)
@LouisIngenthron Wait, are you suggesting you can fly any aircraft in class G space? As i understand any plane other than an ultralight needs licensing in class G space... you cant just legally fly a boeing 747 as longa s you keep it low...
@freemo IIRC, you can literally fly unlicensed experimental craft in class G, so long as you're not over a congested or populated area.
@LouisIngenthron I am far from an expert but I did seriously almost buy an ultralight, so i did a lot of hobbiest research, take it with a grain of salt
What ultralight pilots told me is the plane itself is very restricted.. it must be a single passanger (just you) for example, has strict weight limits etc... Even if you operate in the same space as an ultralight and the only difference is you add a seat and take a passanger, just that alone means you need a license. Also if the plane is heavier than the limits on a ultralight, one seat or not, that too needs a license in the same space.
I cant tell you exactly what space your allowed in or what altitudes. but I know for a fact that back when i looked into this any plane that didnt meet the specs of an ultralight could not fly int he same space as an ultralight without the pilot being licensed.
@freemo Yeah, that's because Ultralights are also allowed in class E airspace (typically from 1,200 ft AGL to 10,000 ft MSL) too, so long as they don't get too close to a controlled airport or overfly congested/populated areas. And class E usually does require a license for most other craft. So that's a little more expansive than just uncontrolled class G.
Another fun fact: Above 60,000 ft MSL is *also* uncontrolled class G, which is why space capsules don't have to check in with air traffic control on each orbit.
@LouisIngenthron Ahh ok, then yes that tracks with what I said and what I thought the case was. Like I knew you couldnt fly it over cities. and I knew you could fly it in spaces that normally require a license.
The fact that above a certain height is class G does make sense... that said the space capsule still had to go through registered space to get that high at some point...
@LouisIngenthron MAkes sense.
Is international waters and the airspace above it completely unregulated.. or is it like ships and you have to follow the rules of your country of origin?
@freemo It is essentially unregulated, but there are international conventions pilots follow to prevent accidents and such.
The real bitch of it is, though, that if you go even a little bit out over international waters, then when you get back, you're required to go through customs.
@LouisIngenthron Oh really... so say a flight from miami to the southern tip of texas, if it took a straight trip over the gulf of mexico, it would have to go through customs despite being within the USA?
@freemo I'm not sure if they get a waiver or what. My understanding was that it was required for any aircraft that enters the ADIZ.
But if you look at a live flight tracking map, you'll notice that not many take that route anyway. They seem to go up and around and stay over land. There are a number of benefits to doing so (better weather tracking, better places to land in an emergency, better visual references if needed, etc.).
@freemo But it must be possible, because I see two United flights doing it right now.
Keeping mind I know nothing about nothing on this topic... attached map of where international waters start would suggest the gulf of mexico is not considered internation airspace (assuming its defined the same as international waters)
If the image doesnt work here is the linkL
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fb0g8iq593gy01.png
@freemo I don't know what definition they're using, but where you want to look is here: https://vfrmap.com/
It's a map of airspace, cobbled together from the maps regularly published by the FAA. You'll see a magenta line labeled "CONTIGUOUS U.S. ADIZ". That's the one that matters.
My best guess is that IFR (instrument-based) flights that file a domestic flight plan and remain tracked the entire way through can skip going through customs but VFR (visual-flight) are not tracked the whole way and would thus be subject to customs.
Another one. On the test, sometimes, when you see "---", it means "zero". Other times, it means "figure it out yourself".
There isn't much available to indicate which is which.