ATP privileges?

[O-Line]

If one intends to provide required instruction within a company or firm, one must be a designated company instructor or check airman, and hold an ATP certificate, or flight instructor certificate

Are you sure about that? FAR 135.337 and 135.338 don't seem to mention either.

Reason I ask is because I seem to remember a company check airman/instructor on a King Air 200 that lost his ATP, he only had a commercial (drug conviction= bad moral character) and didn't have a CFI, at a company that I once worked. He was a good guy, great pilot with a wealth of knowledge, but he did something stupid back in the 70's. Either way I've got 135.293's 297, and 299's signed by him and I'm pretty sure they were legal. I remember our POI even observing a couple of rides.

 

[transpac]

transpac,

No. I'm saying that a person who instructs in a 135 program =does not= need a CFI. But I'm saying that none of the instruction can count toward FAA requirements.

I'm still confused by your post. There is no requirement for a Part 135 flight instructor ("company instructor") to hold a CFI. Therefore, saying that "none of the instruction can count toward FAA requirements" is inaccurate and confusing. The training certainly counts toward FAA Part 135 requirements. If you mean it doesn't count toward Part 61 requirements for a certificate or rating, that I understand.

 

[transpac]

Are you sure about that? FAR 135.337 and 135.338 don't seem to mention either.

Reason I ask is because I seem to remember a company check airman/instructor on a King Air 200 that lost his ATP, he only had a commercial (drug conviction= bad moral character) and didn't have a CFI, at a company that I once worked. He was a good guy, great pilot with a wealth of knowledge, but he did something stupid back in the 70's. Either way I've got 135.293's 297, and 299's signed by him and I'm pretty sure they were legal. I remember our POI even observing a couple of rides.

For Part 135, it depends on the certificate needed to fly as PIC in the aircraft involved. If an ATP is required for PIC, then flight instructors and check airmen on that aircraft need an ATP. Commercial for PIC, Commercial for flight instructor/check airman. There is no requirement for a Part 135 flight instructor or check airman to hold a CFI.

 

[100LL... Again!]

A little reading in the 8700 manual will show that you may use a non-cfi for 135 or 121 instruction in simulators or aircraft.

You may also use non-pilots for ground instruction, as long as they are so designated by the company and properly trained.

 

[midlifeflyer]

100LL,

You know I wouldn't be satisfied by that. I had to read even further to convince myself that I was wrong. Quite clearly, Part 135 does not require 135 instructors to be CFIs. Here it is, the section that talks about the training that is required for 135 flight instructors:

==============================
135.340 Initial and transition training and checking: Flight instructors (aircraft), flight instructors (simulator).

(c) The initial ground training for flight instructors must include the following:

(7) Except for holders of a flight instructor certificate -
(i) The fundamental principles of the teaching-learning process;
(ii) Teaching methods and procedures; and
(iii) The instructor-student relationship.
==============================

Kind of hard to argue that you have to be a CFI when the qualification requirements talk specifically about non-CFIs.

Part 135 contemplates a flight instruction process apart from the Part 61 process.

 

[avbug]

O-line,

You are correct. 14 CFR 135.338(b) spells out the requirements for flight instructors under that part, and the only certificate requirements are the applicant holds certificates and ratings required to serve as PIC under 135 in the aircraft involved.

However, that instructor can give no required instruction for any certificate or rating, nor endorse for any certificate or rating, outside of those duties. For example, a commercially certificated pilot employed as a company instructor in the company Seneca II, can't go training one of the company mechanics for an isntrument rating in the Seneca...even though that pilot can provide instrument instruction prepatory to a Part 135 checkride for a company pilot. In order to provide the instrument training for that mechanic, the pilot would have to hold an instructor certificate with instrument airplane privileges.

To return to topic with the the thread, pursuant to the above paragraph, an ATP providing instruction to other pilots in that company, also cannot provide the instrument instruction to the mechanic toward his instrument rating.

135.338(b), instructing in company aircraft:

(b) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve as a flight instructor (aircraft) in a training program established under this subpart unless, with respect to the type, class, or category aircraft involved, that person -
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the training phases for the aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the proficiency or competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training requirements of § 135.340;
(5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate; and
(6) Has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of § 135.247.

135.338(c) instructing in company simulators:

(c) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve as a flight instructor (simulator) in a training program established under this subpart, unless, with respect to the type, class, or category aircraft involved, that person meets the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, or -
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings, except medical certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part except before March 19, 1997 that person need not hold a type rating for the type, class, or category of aircraft involved.
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases for the aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part; and
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training requirements of § 135.340.

 

[TDTURBO]

O-line,

You are correct. 14 CFR 135.338(b) spells out the requirements for flight instructors under that part, and the only certificate requirements are the applicant holds certificates and ratings required to serve as PIC under 135 in the aircraft involved.

However, that instructor can give no required instruction for any certificate or rating, nor endorse for any certificate or rating, outside of those duties. For example, a commercially certificated pilot employed as a company instructor in the company Seneca II, can't go training one of the company mechanics for an isntrument rating in the Seneca...even though that pilot can provide instrument instruction prepatory to a Part 135 checkride for a company pilot. In order to provide the instrument training for that mechanic, the pilot would have to hold an instructor certificate with instrument airplane privileges.

To return to topic with the the thread, pursuant to the above paragraph, an ATP providing instruction to other pilots in that company, also cannot provide the instrument instruction to the mechanic toward his instrument rating.

135.338(b), instructing in company aircraft:



135.338(c) instructing in company simulators:

News flash,

Avbug can copy and paste, the problem is that his ability to comprehend said regulation is in serious doubt.

BTW AVBUG, nobody needs you to validate anothers response, go back to your imaginary simulator and dream about what it once was like being a real pilot.

 

[DitchDriver]

Man I hate disagreeing with AvBug but here it goes:

However, that instructor can give no required instruction for any certificate or rating, nor endorse for any certificate or rating, outside of those duties.

If you look at 8710, on the front there is "II Certificate or Rating Applied For on Basis of:", "E. Completion of Air Carrier's Approved Training Program". So if a pilot gets recommended by a company instructor for an 8410 checkride, an 8710 gets filled out as well and the pilot walks away with an ATP or a type rating on the certificate.

Running for cover - I might get recommended for unnatural acts with goats.

 

[midlifeflyer]

DitchDirver?

I'm not sure whether you really disagree with AvBug. Even the part you quoted.

In the part you quoted, he said that the Part 135 instructor (not a CFI) "can give no required instruction for any certificate or rating, nor endorse for any certificate or rating, outside of those duties."

His example he gave was a company instructor giving primary instrument instruction to a company employee who is not going to be working as a pilot for the company. Maybe a better example would be primary private pilot training as a favor to the company bookkeeper.

Your example, the type rating received via the company pilot as part of the certificate holder's approved Part 135 training program, is a rating inside those duties.

 

[pilotviolin]

You guys are confusing me. Can an ATP (no CFI) give instruction in a type rated aircraft, if he holds the type? This seems necessary for sic check out?

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Man I hate disagreeing with AvBug but here it goes:



If you look at 8710, on the front there is "II Certificate or Rating Applied For on Basis of:", "E. Completion of Air Carrier's Approved Training Program". So if a pilot gets recommended by a company instructor for an 8410 checkride, an 8710 gets filled out as well and the pilot walks away with an ATP or a type rating on the certificate.

Running for cover - I might get recommended for unnatural acts with goats.

You are exactly right. I just completed my DC8 Type and my instructor was a check airmen (not a DE) and held only an ATP with DC8 Type, among others.

Keep in mind there are no required training times/maneuvers for an ATP or Type rating, hence why an ATP can sign off on the 8710 under company training. The company training (FAA approved) defines manuevers, times, etc that must be met/performed prior to taking a checkride.

 

[avbug]

Midlifeflyer is correct; ditch driver is alluding to something covered in my previous post. That instruction is within the duties of the compan instructor, who is providing instruction within his designated limitations. That company instructor may not teach an outside pilot how to fly gliders, or teach a company mechanic, lineman, or someone else, to fly in the simulator at night...that's outside the program limitations. Likewise, if his duties involve the EMB-120, he can't go to another company simulator, rent it, and teach the ERJ-145 at night, unless he's a certificated flight instructor and typed in that airplane, as it's not his company, not his company program, etc.

The concept of using the ATP, which is the subject of this thread, to instruct beyond that allowed in instructing other pilots in air transport service, is occasionally stretched too far. Likewise, when one is a company instructor, that doesn't make that person a flight instructor beyond the limitations of the company training program. Obtaining a type or an ATP certificate (same ride) is the same as taking a 135 or 121 flight check...same standards, same ride. When the applicant is endorsed, he's being endorsed as completing an FAA approved training program; it's really the program that he's being endorsed for, not the evaluation and instruction capabilities and insight of the company instructor. The company instructor, whatever his or her certification, is merely acting as a signatory representative for the approved training program.

As such, he or she may provide no additional instruction, or endorsement, beyond the program itself. No addition types for which the program is not established, no additional certificates or ratings not applicable to the program, etc.

It was for this purpose that the FAA adjusted and reissued the definition of "authorized instructor" in Part 61.1(b)(2)(iii) of the regulation:

(b) For the purpose of this part:
(2) Authorized instructor means -
(i) A person who holds a valid ground instructor certificate issued under part 61 or part 143 of this chapter when conducting ground training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her ground instructor certificate;
(ii) A person who holds a current flight instructor certificate issued under part 61 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate; or
(iii) A person authorized by the Administrator to provide ground training or flight training under SFAR No. 58, or part 61, 121, 135, or 142 of this chapter when conducting ground training or flight training in accordance with that authority.

 

[501261]

You guys are confusing me. Can an ATP (no CFI) give instruction in a type rated aircraft, if he holds the type? This seems necessary for sic check out?

The short answer is no. I believe it's 61.55f that covers this and the short answer is that SIC checkouts are technically not instruction.

 

[avbug]

You guys are confusing me. Can an ATP (no CFI) give instruction in a type rated aircraft, if he holds the type?

Yes, to other pilots in air transport service. Other pilots employed under Parts 121 or 135, within his company, within his training program, yes. Instruction outside the scope of that program, to individuals outside that program, no.

This seems necessary for sic check out?

Yes, if it's for other pilots in air transport service...it's more than a "checkout" in that case, however.

If your'e talking about a part 61 SIC, who will be conducting operations not outside Part 91 (run of the mill general aviation flying) this is not the case, as no specific instruction is required. The SIC must familiarize himself with the aircraft, systems, proceedures, etc.

 

[Tinstaafl]

I think it's simple:

An ATP without a CFI qualification may give instruction to already licenced pilots who work for the same company, in those items specified within the company's approved training course(s). Nothing else. The ATP must hold PIC qualifications for any aircraft used AND must complete the principles of learning course mentioned earlier in this thread.