Ok I am a CFI with a multi and commercial instrument rating and a high altitude endorsement. Can I give a pilot with an ATP multi and commercial single a high altitude endorsement in a King Air 90? I have a CFI only not a MEI. Can I give him the endorsement or not? I am rated in the aircraft, but he is not since he doesn't have the high altitude, but thats all he needs.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
High Altitude Endorsment neep help quick
- Thread starter Fr8Dog
- Start date
- Watchers 4
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Lrjtcaptain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Posts
- 927
Fr8dog,
Let's look at the requirements for the high altitude endorsement, as well as your privileges as a flight instructor. First, you ask if you can provide instruction in a multi engine airplane, when you don't hold multi engine privileges on your flight instructor certificate. The answer is no, you may not.
Refer to 14 CFR 61.195(b) & (f). In order to provide flight training, you must hold appropriate category and class ratings on your pilot certificate (commercial multi engine airplane land, in this case), as well as on your flight instructor certificate (Flight Instructor, Multi Engine Airplane). Additionally, you must have five hours as pilot-in-command in each multi engine airplane in which you provide flight instruction or flight training.
Next, let's address the issue of being rated in the airplane. Are you rated? Yes, you hold a multi engine land rating on your commercial pilot certificate. Category and class. Is your student rated? Yes: he holds a multi engine land airplane rating on his airline transport pilot certificate. An endorsement is not a rating. He is rated in the airplane, but may not act as pilot in command of that airplane until receiving the appropriate endorsement.
The high altitude endorsement is not type-specific. Your student may receive his training in a flight training device or simulator to meet the requirements of 61.31(g), or a single engine airplane. However, the training must include normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 MSL.
You can provide the necessary flight training if you wish, but not in a multi engine airplane (which rules out the king air). You may also do it in a flight training device or simulator which is representative of a pressurized airplane. You may also do it in a single engine airplane, remembering that if you do it in the airplane, the language of the subparagraph 61.31(g)(2)(i) requires it to be done above 25,000' MSL.
The flight training requirement of 61.31(g)(2) was established upon recommendation by the NTSB, following a series of accidents in the 1980's.
Let's look at the requirements for the high altitude endorsement, as well as your privileges as a flight instructor. First, you ask if you can provide instruction in a multi engine airplane, when you don't hold multi engine privileges on your flight instructor certificate. The answer is no, you may not.
Refer to 14 CFR 61.195(b) & (f). In order to provide flight training, you must hold appropriate category and class ratings on your pilot certificate (commercial multi engine airplane land, in this case), as well as on your flight instructor certificate (Flight Instructor, Multi Engine Airplane). Additionally, you must have five hours as pilot-in-command in each multi engine airplane in which you provide flight instruction or flight training.
Next, let's address the issue of being rated in the airplane. Are you rated? Yes, you hold a multi engine land rating on your commercial pilot certificate. Category and class. Is your student rated? Yes: he holds a multi engine land airplane rating on his airline transport pilot certificate. An endorsement is not a rating. He is rated in the airplane, but may not act as pilot in command of that airplane until receiving the appropriate endorsement.
The high altitude endorsement is not type-specific. Your student may receive his training in a flight training device or simulator to meet the requirements of 61.31(g), or a single engine airplane. However, the training must include normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 MSL.
You can provide the necessary flight training if you wish, but not in a multi engine airplane (which rules out the king air). You may also do it in a flight training device or simulator which is representative of a pressurized airplane. You may also do it in a single engine airplane, remembering that if you do it in the airplane, the language of the subparagraph 61.31(g)(2)(i) requires it to be done above 25,000' MSL.
The flight training requirement of 61.31(g)(2) was established upon recommendation by the NTSB, following a series of accidents in the 1980's.
Last edited:
Avbug stated......... "Additionally, you must have five hours as pilot-in-command in each multi engine airplane in which you provide flight instruction or flight training."
Avbug: Could you clarify this? As I read 61.195 (f), a CFI/Multi can give all the dual he wants in any twin (not requiring a type rating), even if he does not have five hours PIC in it, as long it is not "training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating". For instance, he could give recurrent instrument instruction, ICC's BFR's etc in a twin he did not have 5 hours PIC in. Not saying it is necessarily a good idea, but it would seem to be perfectly legal. Is there an FAA "ruling" or "interpretation" that would contradict the obvious wording of the regulation? Would like to hear your response. Thanks.
Avbug: Could you clarify this? As I read 61.195 (f), a CFI/Multi can give all the dual he wants in any twin (not requiring a type rating), even if he does not have five hours PIC in it, as long it is not "training required for the issuance of a certificate or rating". For instance, he could give recurrent instrument instruction, ICC's BFR's etc in a twin he did not have 5 hours PIC in. Not saying it is necessarily a good idea, but it would seem to be perfectly legal. Is there an FAA "ruling" or "interpretation" that would contradict the obvious wording of the regulation? Would like to hear your response. Thanks.
sanford&son
threefeethighandrising
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Posts
- 29
why not just do it in a sim? IF your insurance company is going to require that your pilot do training @ FS, Simcom, or Simuflight, just let them handle it. even if you are not required to go to one of these places, it may be worth renting a capable sim for an hour or so to do this, just to save wear and tear on your a/c. you can do so much more in the sim, without making the owner of your c-90 cringe, and for a thorough high"A", that is well worth it. just a thought.
-lamont
-lamont
MSW,
You're correct: I'm not aware of any interpretation of the regulation which would prevent a flight instructor from giving instruction in a multi engine airplane, in which he or she has less than five hours of pilot in command, for purposes other than a certificate or rating.
My previous comments were general in that area, and more applicable to the subject of the high altitude endorsement.
I agree that providing instruction in an airplane which is foriegn isn't really a good idea: five hours isn't very much at all to require of a flight instructor, with respect to make and model.
I believe it would be very difficult today, if not impossible, to find an insurance company willing to cover an instructor who had les than that amount of pilot in command time, while providing instruction in the airplane. I'm aware of policies which require that time to be in the specific airplane (serial number) in which the instruction is being given, as it's the specific airplane covered by the policy.
Additionally, if the recipient of the instruction were to later use that experience as being applicable to a certificate or rating, it may be held that the instructor has indeed violated 61.195(f), even without the intent to do so. I'm not aware of a specific case providing such a precedent, but I believe (opinion) that it's not much of a stretch for enforcement action, given the grounds to do so. The FAA has certainly used far less. Further, in the event of a mishap or some incident leading to civil action, lack of experience provides a very weak defense base...at a minimum, one should consider the experience requirements of 61.195(f) when considering one's liability.
In making this reply, all I can say is I'm not aware of any ruling to the contrary...it may very well exist. The safest stance is to have the five hours.
You're correct: I'm not aware of any interpretation of the regulation which would prevent a flight instructor from giving instruction in a multi engine airplane, in which he or she has less than five hours of pilot in command, for purposes other than a certificate or rating.
My previous comments were general in that area, and more applicable to the subject of the high altitude endorsement.
I agree that providing instruction in an airplane which is foriegn isn't really a good idea: five hours isn't very much at all to require of a flight instructor, with respect to make and model.
I believe it would be very difficult today, if not impossible, to find an insurance company willing to cover an instructor who had les than that amount of pilot in command time, while providing instruction in the airplane. I'm aware of policies which require that time to be in the specific airplane (serial number) in which the instruction is being given, as it's the specific airplane covered by the policy.
Additionally, if the recipient of the instruction were to later use that experience as being applicable to a certificate or rating, it may be held that the instructor has indeed violated 61.195(f), even without the intent to do so. I'm not aware of a specific case providing such a precedent, but I believe (opinion) that it's not much of a stretch for enforcement action, given the grounds to do so. The FAA has certainly used far less. Further, in the event of a mishap or some incident leading to civil action, lack of experience provides a very weak defense base...at a minimum, one should consider the experience requirements of 61.195(f) when considering one's liability.
In making this reply, all I can say is I'm not aware of any ruling to the contrary...it may very well exist. The safest stance is to have the five hours.
Ok here is my situation. All of our company training is in house. I am 135 current in the Cessna 207, 402 and Beech 99. We also crew a King Air E90 for a company here, and for my Director of Ops to fly it he needs to have a high altitude endorsement. Before I posted to here I called my FSDO and they couldn't give me an answer so That is why I posted here, and you guys proved to be more helpful. Thanks again everyone.
DC9stick
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 147
This situation probably requires more research than I have time for, but to be the Devils advocate here goes.
The endorsement in question is not multi-engine specific, it is not type specific, you are current and qualified in the A/C in question, The pilot recieving the instruction is otherwise qualified,
you are a CFI, I see no reason why you could not give the endorsement.
After a short research period I find myself incorect!
Section 61.195: Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations:
(a) Hours of training. In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training.
(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and
(2) If appropriate, a type rating.
The endorsement in question is not multi-engine specific, it is not type specific, you are current and qualified in the A/C in question, The pilot recieving the instruction is otherwise qualified,
you are a CFI, I see no reason why you could not give the endorsement.
After a short research period I find myself incorect!
Section 61.195: Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations:
(a) Hours of training. In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training.
(b) Aircraft ratings. A flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does not hold:
(1) A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and
(2) If appropriate, a type rating.
Last edited:
Freightdog,
Contacting the FSDO for information is futile. Nothing they can tell you is worth the time it takes to listen; it has no meaning, and no backing. It's nothing more than opinion, as the folks at the FSDO don't have the right or authority to interpret anything. Their job is lower level administration, and you do not have a leg to stand on if you base your actions on what anybody at the FSDO tells you.
Information received at other levlels, and legal interpretations have significance, but nothing from the FSDO level can be used to back you up...the fine folks at that level can tell you anything they wish, or think, and it means nothing. Something to remember.
Contacting the FSDO for information is futile. Nothing they can tell you is worth the time it takes to listen; it has no meaning, and no backing. It's nothing more than opinion, as the folks at the FSDO don't have the right or authority to interpret anything. Their job is lower level administration, and you do not have a leg to stand on if you base your actions on what anybody at the FSDO tells you.
Information received at other levlels, and legal interpretations have significance, but nothing from the FSDO level can be used to back you up...the fine folks at that level can tell you anything they wish, or think, and it means nothing. Something to remember.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
