ATP privileges?

[DitchDriver]

DitchDriver...
After you've given all that dual without a valid CFI certificate please let us know how your student does on his oral. It won't even get to a checkride.

Never did such a thing, rules are clear on that.

There is (as far as I know) only one instance where a non-CFI can give valid dual instruction in the civilian world - Balloons. A commercial balloon pilot can give flight instruction.

'Sled

I was talking about a civilian part 135 company instruction.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ah! (light bulb turns on). I =think= I know what DitchDriver is talking about. There is nothing in the regulations that prohibits, say a private pilot, from teaching his nephew how to fly - so long as it's not logged as instruction given or used as evidence of meeting requirements.

So, I guess a 135 company =could= use non-CFIs to teach in their airplanes, so long as =none= of the time was used to meet Part 135 instructional requirements. Might even make sense for certain things.

But even so, I think that instruction that doesn't count for any FAA purpose isn't what we're talking about here.

 

[transpac]

Ah! (light bulb turns on).
So, I guess a 135 company =could= use non-CFIs to teach in their airplanes, so long as =none= of the time was used to meet Part 135 instructional requirements. Might even make sense for certain things.

But even so, I think that instruction that doesn't count for any FAA purpose isn't what we're talking about here.

I'm guess I'm kind of dense, but it sounds like you're saying that a person who instructs in a Part 135 flight training program must hold a CFI. Since there is no such requirement, I must be misreading your post.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

AvBug actually said it earlier:

"Company instructor" means nothing, and grants no privilege beyond providing non-required instruction within the company. The company could designate the same person to be a company mascot, company cheerleader, or company goat herder, with the same level of significance, and authority.

or another way: A Part 135 operation could use chimpanzees as instructors if it wanted to "with the same level of significance and authroity" as a non-CFI pilot.

The "light bulb" was realizing that DitchDriver was talking about instruction that doesn't count. And I was thinking it's kind of silly to go talking about the regulations that apply to someting that the regulations don't apply to.

 

[minitour]

The company could designate the same person to be a company mascot...

...got one...

company cheerleader,

...same guy...

or company goat herder

...now this is freakin me out....

with the same level of significance, and authority.

...that's pretty much how we look at it too...what an amazing goat herder though.....

 

[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.