I am asking to clear up contention on my related question that was put 'on hold' by the moderators. To my knowledge, there is no other category of aircraft besides 'Ultralight' as defined in CFR 14 part 103, that doesn't require any kind of pilot's license. The 'experimental' category requires a recreational pilot license.

The problem with the 'Ultralight' category is that in practice it ends up being discriminatory against heavier potential users.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ As an aside, the community puts questions on hold. Rarely do moderators intervene. Your question was closed by people voting to close it. $\endgroup$
    – Simon
    Jul 10, 2017 at 6:57
  • $\begingroup$ You clearly want to fly, but seem opposed to getting a license. Why? Do you drive a car without a license too? Just go get licensed; it will make you a better pilot, and you will learn a lot. $\endgroup$
    – abelenky
    Jul 10, 2017 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ @abelenky I am a pilot. This is not about my personal flight ambitions. I am trying to see under which regulatory framework the self-piloted Personal Aerial Transport Vehicle (PATV) would fit. envision a Jetsons type Local Aerial Personal Transportation Network (LAPTN) where you board the PATV, set your desired destination and the PATV would automatically fly you to your destination in coordination with the LAPTN. don't need drivers license for self-driving cars, don't need pilots license for self-piloted PATV $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2017 at 19:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "don't need drivers license for self-driving cars". That's new to me, as the driver so far was not relieved from their total responsibility to drive the vehicle, the software being only an assistance to the driver, from the standpoint of the law. Nobody will pay fines or go to the court, but the driver. $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Jul 10, 2017 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ @mins "driver so far was not relieved" yet. Just a matter of time. As the the trends increase our visibility going forward in the time domain, the PATV in LAPTN scenario described will become real and the regs must adapt. There is no debate on "if" this will happen, just "when" $\endgroup$ Jul 10, 2017 at 22:22

1 Answer 1


Yes, there is at least one. This probably was not what you had in mind, but the FAA has been very explicit about the following, for a variety of reasons.

Unmanned aircraft are explicitly regulated as aircraft. However, certain model aircraft require no certificate if operated under the provisions of §101. This is in contrast to all other unmanned aircraft which do require some sort of certificate or exemption, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems regulated under §107 for example.

The following definition is from 14 CFR 1.1:

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

The following is excerpted from the FAA's FAQ page on Unmanned Aircraft Systems:

What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)? An unmanned aircraft system is an unmanned aircraft and the equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft. An unmanned aircraft is a component of a UAS. It is defined by statute as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft (Public Law 112-95, Section 331(8)).


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.