High Altitude Endorsement- Who gives?

[tonycondon]

So I got the high altitude endorsement, it was great, but now i am doubting how valid it is because of the instructor. My instructor is Commercial AMEL, CFI-ASEL, and of course has the high altitude endorsement. I am Commercial AMEL, with no high altitude endorsement previously. We did all the required training, ground, and he endorsed me. As I am looking up the regs, simply out of curiousity, I notice that in 61.31(g) it says that:

Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook...


​

My concern is the term "authorized instructor" According to 61.1(b)(2), authorized instructor means-

...(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...


​

And finally, in 61.195:

A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations:


(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...

​

So basically the way i see it, my instructor is limited by his flight instructor certificate to instruct in ASEL only. Even though I am not receiving specific multiengine training, I am receiving High Altitude training in a multiengine airplane and therefore he must be an AMEL instructor. Since I am completely confused on the issue, I called AOPA at my instructors suggestion. They said that since he was conducting High Altitude training and has the high altitude endorsement that he can give that training in a multiengine airplane. The guy at AOPA likened it to a CFII giving instrument training in a multiengine airplane without having CFI-AMEL. I am not completely sold, but am willing to be convinced.


Now, if I determine that my instructor was not able to give me the high altitude endorsement, what is the best way to remove the endorsement from my logbook?

Thanks in advance for all the help, I can't seem to get any further on this problem by myself,

Tony
Commercial-ASEL,AMEL,Glider, Instrument
CFI-ASEL, Instrument, AMEL

 

[EdFred]

Interesting question, which also brings this one to the table then:

If you recieve a high performance endorsement in a single, do you also have to get one for a multi?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Most insurers will specify who they will accept an endorsement from. The altitude chamber in Tulsa seems to be universally accepted. My insurer was satisfied with Recurrent Training Center when I did my annual sim training. Once you've flown in a pressurized plane for awhile, it seem to become less of an issue. It's still an issue taught in recurrent training.

Best,

Dave

 

[tonycondon]

Im not too worried about the insurance companies right now. Im more worried about my friendly FAA inspector saying "This endorsement is invalid because the instructor wasn't authorized to give the training"

 

[gismo]

The guy at AOPA likened it to a CFII giving instrument training in a multiengine airplane without having CFI-AMEL. I am not completely sold, but am willing to be convinced.

Seems like a good comparison, but AFaIK a CFI cannot give instrument training in a multi without a mult engine rating on his certificate. I do know that to be a safety pilot in a twin you must have a mult engine rating.

Now, if I determine that my instructor was not able to give me the high altitude endorsement, what is the best way to remove the endorsement from my logbook?

I don't think you need to remove it, just get a proper one before using the priviledge.

 

[tonycondon]

Lance,

I misread the reg the first time through, and I thought that the AOPA guy's quote seemed funny, but here it is in 61.195:

(c) Instrument Rating. A flight instructor who provides instrument flight training for the issuance of an instrument rating or a type rating not limited to VFR must hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate and pilot certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft in which instrument training is being provided.

First, it is not written very well, but the way i see it, the instructor must have AMEL to do multi instrument training toward the instrument rating. This makes me doubt AOPA's opinion even more...

Tony

 

[Bones]

Person has to be a CFI MEL, and has to be done in a pressurized aircraft...its all in 91...have to do a "High Dive". Its good for any pressurized aircraft single or multi. Its been a while since i've looked at it though so could be wrong.

 

[Bones]

If you are going to be flying a pressure single I would just call your friendly local FAA inspector. They will have the answer or will get it for you. I have done that on many occasoins and would recomend that.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

First, it is not written very well, but the way i see it, the instructor must have AMEL to do multi instrument training toward the instrument rating. This makes me doubt AOPA's opinion even more...

You have it correct, AOPA botched it. Unfortunately, it is a theme. I would suggest calling AOPA and asking to speak with the technical support supervisor. Someone needs some remedial training. If we don't haul the garbage it will never get taken out.

 

[bbchien]

Tony, the AOPA Technical Advisor is incorrect. Do not remove the endorsement, simply go to someone who can provide it. (CFIA-I-MEI with Hi-altitude in his logbook). Quietly advise the CFI that he has bought himself a 709 ride. The FAR quoted information posted here is correct, correct, correct.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

(CFIA-I-MEI with Hi-altitude in his logbook).

I know the FAQ file will claim the last is a requirement, but please show me a definitive reference indicating that "authorized instructor" has any endorsement connotations. One of those interesting FAR quirks.

 

[poadeleted20]

So I got the high altitude endorsement, it was great, but now i am doubting how valid it is because of the instructor. My instructor is Commercial AMEL, CFI-ASEL, and of course has the high altitude endorsement. I am Commercial AMEL, with no high altitude endorsement previously. We did all the required training, ground, and he endorsed me.

First things first -- you do NOT have a high altitude endorsement if all you got was ground training. Re-read 14 CFR 61.31(g) and you'll see you need both the ground training in (g)(1) and the flight training in paragraph (g)(2) before you can be PIC in a "high altitude" aircraft.

Now, since the subjects covered in paragraph (g)(1) are strictly physiological and have nothing to do with how many engines you have, the endorsement you received from that instructor is good for the ground training required. However, you will have to receive appropriate training in an aircraft, sim, or FTD (the latter two certfied by the FAA to be used for training on high altitude airplanes) and an endorsement so stateing from an appropriately rated instructor before you can be PIC in a high altitude aircraft. If the HAA in which you fly is a single, your instructor can do this. If it's a twin, he can't. But you're not HAA-endorsed until you get that part done, too.

If you recieve a high performance endorsement in a single, do you also have to get one for a multi?

No -- the HAA endorsement is not class-specific -- see 14 CFR 61.31(g).

AFaIK a CFI cannot give instrument training in a multi without a mult engine rating on his certificate

The FAA Flight Standards Service has officially stated that a person with an ME rating on his Commercial Pilot certificate but not on his CFI certificate can, if he has an Instrument-Airplane rating on his CFI certificate, give instrument training to a pilot in a twin as long as the training is not multi-engine specific (i.e., engine-out stuff). I think this is totally absurd, but that's their position.

However, I can see that it probably would not be possible to do all the flight training needed for the HAA endorsement without some reference to multiengine issues, so a CFI-ASE would not be able to do all the training in an ME aircraft and sign the (g)(2) endorsement without an ME rating on his CFI ticket. You could, however, get that endorsement from that instructor in a SE HAA aircraft, and it would be valid for ME aircraft, too, since the endorsement is not class- or type- specific.

 

[tonycondon]

Ron,

Thanks for the reply. Also sorry for the confusion.

When I said "We did all the required training, ground, and he endorsed me. " I meant "We did all the required flight training, ground, and he endorsed me."

Its a good thing I haven't/don't plan to act as PIC in HAA airplanes any time soon. Just had an instructor and airplane available and thought it would be good to have.


Thanks again everyone

 

[poadeleted20]

When I said "We did all the required training, ground, and he endorsed me. " I meant "We did all the required flight training, ground, and he endorsed me."

In what aircraft? It has to be an HAA, and he has to be an "authorized instructor" in that aircraft. If it was a twin, I do not believe the endorsement is valid as I do not believe he could give the necessary instruction without a ME rating on his CFI ticket.

 

[tonycondon]

Ron,

It was in the twin, a HAA, so the endorsement is no good. Thanks for all the help,

 

[poadeleted20]

I know the FAQ file will claim the last is a requirement, but please show me a definitive reference indicating that "authorized instructor" has any endorsement connotations. One of those interesting FAR quirks.

Actually, Tony's specific question was already asked and answered by AFS-800, which said that if the HAA flight training was in a twin, the instructor needed an ME rating on both pilot and instructor tickets (Ref: Q&A-585) and as we should all realize by now, the prudent pilot will abide by the AFS policies in that FAQ file unless/until an overruling legal opinion is obtained from an FAA Regional or Chief Counsel.

Further, Q&A-551 specifically says that an instructor cannot legally give Additional Training Endorsement flight training/endorsements unless that instructor holds the relevent ATE. The principal reason for this is that someone must act as PIC during the flight. However, that instructor can give other training not related to the ATE (e.g., instrument rating training) to a pilot in an ATE-required aircraft as long as the trainee is fully qualified to be, and acting as, the PIC for the training flight. Thus, a non-tailwheel-endorsed CFI-IA could give instrument training to a tailwheel-endorsed pilot with the exception of the 250 nm IFR XC, since the instructor must act as PIC for that flight, and cannot do so without the ATE.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

However, that instructor can give other training not related to the ATE (e.g., instrument rating training) to a pilot in an ATE-required aircraft as long as the trainee is fully qualified to be, and acting as, the PIC for the training flight. Thus, a non-tailwheel-endorsed CFI-IA could give instrument training to a tailwheel-endorsed pilot with the exception of the 250 nm IFR XC, since the instructor must act as PIC for that flight, and cannot do so without the ATE.

You found the "other" FAQ Q&A on the CFI not acting as PIC and ATE required/not required answers. With John Lynch the answer depends on whether you are reading the tailwheel or the high performance/complex aircraft questions, and, I believe, on whether or not John Lynch was taking his medication that day. Both answers exist in the FAQ file within separate Q&A: CFI not acting as PIC doesn't need ATE; CFI not acting as PCI must have ATE.

As I keep suggesting to you, the FAQ file is worthless. Read the legal disclaimer and then find a better legal reference.

 

[poadeleted20]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
However, that instructor can give other training not related to the ATE (e.g., instrument rating training) to a pilot in an ATE-required aircraft as long as the trainee is fully qualified to be, and acting as, the PIC for the training flight. Thus, a non-tailwheel-endorsed CFI-IA could give instrument training to a tailwheel-endorsed pilot with the exception of the 250 nm IFR XC, since the instructor must act as PIC for that flight, and cannot do so without the ATE.

You found the "other" FAQ Q&A on the CFI not acting as PIC and ATE required/not required answers. With John Lynch the answer depends on whether you are reading the tailwheel or the high performance/complex aircraft questions, and, I believe, on whether or not John Lynch was taking his medication that day. Both answers exist in the FAQ file within separate Q&A: CFI not acting as PIC doesn't need ATE; CFI not acting as PCI must have ATE.

I can't find the inconsistency you cite. From what I can find, Mr. Lynch has said:

1. A CFI without an ATE cannot give the instruction or the endorsement for that ATE.
2. A CFI without an ATE cannot give instruction related to that ATE, e.g., no flight review in tailwheel plane without a tailwheel endorsement since tailwheel landings are part of a flight review in a tailwheel plane.
3. A CFI without an ATE can give instruction unrelated to that ATE, e.g., instrument training in a tailwheel plane without a tailwheel ATE.
4. A CFI without an ATE can only give instruction if the trainee is qualified to be and acting as PIC.

These are a summary of Q&A's 551 and 585, the only ones I can find on the subject. While I feel that an instructor should not instruct in an aircraft in which he is not qualified to act as PIC, I think the AFS position is consistently stated although not in one place. If there's anything in these four points you think Mr. Lynch didn't say, or anything you think he said that isn't in these four points, I'd appreciate a quote and Q&A-# citation from the FAQ file so I can see what you're talking about.

And I have read both the disclaimer and the AFS Chief's memo quoted above. I think the memo states the situation very clearly -- AFS will operate using the FAQ file as policy unless/until an FAA Counsel says otherwise. Since the enforcement system starts with AFS, if AFS writes you up, you will not get the chance to get that overturned until you have received a letter proposing sanctions and incurred the expense of an attorney.

Since it costs NOTHING to send a letter or email to an RC for an opinion BEFORE you go against AFS policy, I think you'd have to be a damn fool to go against the FAQ without first getting an FAA Counsel's opinion that says the FAQ is wrong. But that's a choice each of us must make for ourselves. Ed and I have both on several occasions obtained those opinions, usually backing AFS-800's policy, but occasionally overturning it.

So if you don't like what's in there, and think it's wrong, write it up, send it in, and see what happens. But if you do something contrary to those written policies, you are betting your ticket that the FAA Counsel will agree with you, not AFS-800, and that doesn't happen often.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I can't find the inconsistency you cite.

You should have tried the word search terms I fed you.

From what I can find, Mr. Lynch has said:

2. A CFI without an ATE cannot give instruction related to that ATE, e.g., no flight review in tailwheel plane without a tailwheel endorsement since tailwheel landings are part of a flight review in a tailwheel plane.

What Mr. Lynch wrote is that the CFI is not "an authorized instructor" (Ref. FAQ Q&A #551). He made no other clarifications, nor did he offer the further information/justification you have attributed to him.

BTW, "authorized instructor" is an FAR defined phrase and ATEs are not part of that definition, ergo, Mr. Lynch's claim is not supported by and does indeed contradict the FARs.

3. A CFI without an ATE can give instruction unrelated to that ATE, e.g., instrument training in a tailwheel plane without a tailwheel ATE.

John Lynch does indeed state in Q&A 297 that the CFI may instruct and log if the other pilot is acting as PIC, however, once again, he does not offer up further clarification nor does he offer up the "instruction unrelated" bit you claim.

Furthermore, in Q&A 297 John Lynch then goes on to state that the CFI may log the time as PIC per 61.51 ("An authorized instructor may log as pilot in command time while acting as an authorized instructor"). Never mind that in Q&A 551 John Lynch stated that the CFI w/o TW ATE is not "an authorized instructor" in a TW aircraft. But here we have the CFI logging the time as PIC since the CFI is "an authorized instructor". Hmmm.

BTW, your "TW landing" logic (embellishment?) stated above comes into play here since the PTS requires a landing out of a circle or straight-in approach. Which is it? The TW landing kills the deal, or it doesn't?

These are a summary of Q&A's 551 and 585, the only ones I can find on the subject.

Add Q&A 297 and Q&A 265 (this one a high performance ATE question). BTW, Q&A 265 is the real eye-opener in that John Lynch unequivocally states that a CFI may not give any instruction in the HP aircraft without an HP endorsement:

QUESTION: A similar situation in that the flight instructor is still not qualified to act as PIC in a high performance airplane because he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a high performance airplane [i.e., § 61.31(f)]. But the person who the flight instructor is giving training to is qualified to pilot a high performance airplane, because he has previously met the training and endorsement requirements of § 61.31(f)? Now, can that flight instructor give flight training to that person in this scenario?



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(f) and § 61.195(b); Again, the answer is no. Even though § 61.195(b) doesn’t specifically deny this flight instructor from doing something stupid, I believe the word “applicable” in § 61.195(b)(1) [i.e., “A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating”] does have some significance and purpose. And as I stated previously, I hope to have a rulemaking action completed that will create a new subparagraph (3) to § 61.195(b) that will establish the provision “(3) If required, an endorsement to serve as pilot in command in that aircraft.” Then, without question, the rule will definitely prevent this kind of idiotic scenario! Anyway, what kind of worthwhile training could this flight instructor think he could provide when he/she is not even qualified in the aircraft. The flight instructor certainly could not provide the training and endorsement required by § 61.31(f), because the flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor.”

{Q&A-265}



This extremely definitive statement of course contradicts John Lynch's answer in Q&A 297 (CFI need not have TW ATE if the instruction is instrument instruction in a TW aircraft if other pilot is PIC).

While I feel that an instructor should not instruct in an aircraft in which he is not qualified to act as PIC,

Absolutely agree and I hope everyone recognizes we are not arguing prudence, merely John Lych inconsistencies.

I think the AFS position is consistently stated although not in one place.

It will be interesting to see you explain away the contradiction between Q&A 297 & Q&A 265.

And I have read both the disclaimer and the AFS Chief's memo quoted above. I think the memo states the situation very clearly -- AFS will operate using the FAQ file as policy unless/until an FAA Counsel says otherwise. Since the enforcement system starts with AFS, if AFS writes you up, you will not get the chance to get that overturned until you have received a letter proposing sanctions and incurred the expense of an attorney.

As I stated elsewhere--when the enforcement letter arrives the regional counsel already reviewed and concurred. At that point you aren't arguing FSDO/FAQ file interpretation--you are arguing counsel's interpretation.

Since it costs NOTHING to send a letter or email to an RC for an opinion BEFORE you go against AFS policy, I think you'd have to be a damn fool to go against the FAQ without first getting an FAA Counsel's opinion that says the FAQ is wrong. But that's a choice each of us must make for ourselves. Ed and I have both on several occasions obtained those opinions, usually backing AFS-800's policy, but occasionally overturning it.

Whole heartedly agree. However, if we go back to your original statement (paraphrase: FAQ file rules supreme)--then, according to you this option is not viable since FAA legal's opinion doesn't matter--that being the erroneous statement you originally made.

 

[poadeleted20]

What Mr. Lynch wrote is that the CFI is not "an authorized instructor" (Ref. FAQ Q&A #551). He made no other clarifications, nor did he offer the further information/justification you have attributed to him.

Here's the WHOLE Q&A-551:

QUESTION: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question whether he can give flight training in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.31(i)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot give flight training in a tailwheel airplane for the tailwheel airplane endorsement unless he has complied with § 61.31(i). Per § 61.31(i)(1), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . from an authorized instructor in a tailwheel airplane . . . .” Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate . . . .” The flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor” for providing flight training in a tailwheel airplane for the tailwheel airplane endorsement.

{Q&A-551}


QUESTION: The situation is a flight instructor has asked the question whether he can give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane and yet he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a tailwheel airplane [i.e., § 61.31(i)].



ANSWER: Ref. § 61.1(b)(2); § 61.56(c)(1); No, a flight instructor cannot give a flight review in a tailwheel airplane unless he has complied with § 61.31(i). Per § 61.56(c)(1), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . by an authorized instructor . . . .” Per § 61.1(b)(2)(ii), it states, in pertinent part, “. . . in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor certificate . . . .” The flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor” for giving a flight review in a tailwheel airplane.

{Q&A-551}



Note that while the first question is not limited to training for the TW ATE, the answer is. As for the second question, note that the answer is specifically limited to giving flight reviews. In talking with AFS about this, their reason for that limited restriction is that part of the flight review includes landings, and a non-TW-endorsed instructor cannot evaluate TW landings.

BTW, "authorized instructor" is an FAR defined phrase and ATEs are not part of that definition, ergo, Mr. Lynch's claim is not supported by and does indeed contradict the FARs.

Whether or not that is true, unless and until an FAA Counsel agrees with us in writing, AFS will take action according to the FAQ, and any flight instructor who gives any instruction in an aircraft for which he lacks the relevent ATE's should expect expensive trouble with the FSDO and even if he is later vindicated, it will be a pyrrhic victory.

John Lynch does indeed state in Q&A 297 that the CFI may instruct and log if the other pilot is acting as PIC, however, once again, he does not offer up further clarification nor does he offer up the "instruction unrelated" bit you claim.

Again, the answer given by Mr. Lynch is specifically limited to instrument training, and AFS has even said that while you do need an AMEL/AMES (as appropriate) rating on your pilot certificate, you don't need an AME rating on your CFI to give instrument training in a twin if you have the IA rating on both tickets -- another interpretation with which I disagree strongly, but which was cleared through AGC. You wouldn't believe the logic on this one, but it has to do with the order of phrases in 61.195(b)(1) and the fact that there are no type ratings on CFI tickets.

Furthermore, in Q&A 297 John Lynch then goes on to state that the CFI may log the time as PIC per 61.51 ("An authorized instructor may log as pilot in command time while acting as an authorized instructor"). Never mind that in Q&A 551 John Lynch stated that the CFI w/o TW ATE is not "an authorized instructor" in a TW aircraft. But here we have the CFI logging the time as PIC since the CFI is "an authorized instructor". Hmmm.

In 551, Lynch only says that a CFI w/o TW ATE is not an "authorized instructor" for giving TW endorsements or flight reviews in TW aircraft. 297 concerns only instrument training, which Lynch says IS authorized w/o the TW endorsement. You have to read these VERY carefully, as Lynch almost always strictly limits the answers he gives to very specific situations.

BTW, your "TW landing" logic (embellishment?) stated above comes into play here since the PTS requires a landing out of a circle or straight-in approach. Which is it? The TW landing kills the deal, or it doesn't?

IMO (note the logic in 585 regarding ME ops instrument training by a CFI-IA with no AME rating), Lynch's logic says that the CFI w/o TW could not give the training on the landing task, but could give all other IR training. One would have to confirm that, but that's the read I get from the sum of all the referenced Q&A's.

Add Q&A 297 and Q&A 265 (this one a high performance ATE question). BTW, Q&A 265 is the real eye-opener in that John Lynch unequivocally states that a CFI may not give any instruction in the HP aircraft without an HP endorsement:

QUESTION: A similar situation in that the flight instructor is still not qualified to act as PIC in a high performance airplane because he has not previously met the additional training requirements for operating a high performance airplane [i.e., § 61.31(f)]. But the person who the flight instructor is giving training to is qualified to pilot a high performance airplane, because he has previously met the training and endorsement requirements of § 61.31(f)? Now, can that flight instructor give flight training to that person in this scenario?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(f) and § 61.195(b); Again, the answer is no. Even though § 61.195(b) doesn’t specifically deny this flight instructor from doing something stupid, I believe the word “applicable” in § 61.195(b)(1) [i.e., “A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating”] does have some significance and purpose. And as I stated previously, I hope to have a rulemaking action completed that will create a new subparagraph (3) to § 61.195(b) that will establish the provision “(3) If required, an endorsement to serve as pilot in command in that aircraft.” Then, without question, the rule will definitely prevent this kind of idiotic scenario! Anyway, what kind of worthwhile training could this flight instructor think he could provide when he/she is not even qualified in the aircraft. The flight instructor certainly could not provide the training and endorsement required by § 61.31(f), because the flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor.”

{Q&A-265}




This extremely definitive statement of course contradicts John Lynch's answer in Q&A 297 (CFI need not have TW ATE if the instruction is instrument instruction in a TW aircraft if other pilot is PIC).

Note again that Lynch limited his answer in the final sentence to training for the HP ATE, and that's consistent with 551 in re: TW ATE.

...I hope everyone recognizes we are not arguing prudence, merely John Lynch inconsistencies.

If you read very carefully, and understand both Mr. Lynch's weak writing skills and his penchant for very limited answers, I think you'll see the inconsistencies are due to extrapolations beyond his exact words.

As I stated elsewhere--when the enforcement letter arrives the regional counsel already reviewed and concurred. At that point you aren't arguing FSDO/FAQ file interpretation--you are arguing counsel's interpretation.

I would still like to see any example you can put forth in which an RC overruled and turned back an enforcement action initiated by a FSDO inspector based on an AFS FAQ file interpretation.

Quote:

Since it costs NOTHING to send a letter or email to an RC for an opinion BEFORE you go against AFS policy, I think you'd have to be a damn fool to go against the FAQ without first getting an FAA Counsel's opinion that says the FAQ is wrong. But that's a choice each of us must make for ourselves. Ed and I have both on several occasions obtained those opinions, usually backing AFS-800's policy, but occasionally overturning it.


​

Whole heartedly agree.

Good.

However, if we go back to your original statement (paraphrase: FAQ file rules supreme)

I do NOT buy into your paraphrase. What I said on the other thread was that unless/until an FAA Counsel overrules an AFS FAQ file interpretation, the enforcement system will act on the AFS FAQ interpretation, and I both stand by that statement and think you said the same thing above. Whether that overrule comes in the enforcement process or via a request for interpretation is not at issue, and by the time it gets to the RC in the enforcement process, you've already incurred trouble you don't want even if the RC overrules AFS.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

My apologies, but quotes stacked upon quotes is not this software's strength. I'll skip the long tap dance and limit the reply to the salient FAQ (the one that contradicts the rest):

Note again that Lynch limited his answer in the final sentence to training for the HP ATE, and that's consistent with 551 in re: TW ATE.

The Q&A 551 section:

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.31(f) and § 61.195(b); Again, the answer is no. Even though § 61.195(b) doesn’t specifically deny this flight instructor from doing something stupid, I believe the word “applicable” in § 61.195(b)(1) [i.e., “A pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating”] does have some significance and purpose. And as I stated previously, I hope to have a rulemaking action completed that will create a new subparagraph (3) to § 61.195(b) that will establish the provision “(3) If required, an endorsement to serve as pilot in command in that aircraft.” Then, without question, the rule will definitely prevent this kind of idiotic scenario! Anyway, what kind of worthwhile training could this flight instructor think he could provide when he/she is not even qualified in the aircraft. The flight instructor certainly could not provide the training and endorsement required by § 61.31(f), because the flight instructor would not be considered an “authorized instructor.”

{Q&A-265}


As you note, the last sentence is indeed limited to instruction with the purpose of adding an endorsement. However, what you ignore is that the preceding five sentences clearly relate to ALL FLIGHT INSTRUCTION. Please note the reference to 61.195(b) plus the statement that Mr. Lynch wants to add a clause (3) which he believes will remove all confusion. For those that don't have an FAR handy, 61.195(b):

§ 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations:
(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.

To which Mr. Lynch wishes to add for clarification purposes:

(3) If required, an endorsement to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.


Mr. Lynch quite obviously believes a flight instructor may not instruct in an aircraft for which that instructor does not hold the appropriate ATE(s). This, however, does contradict the other FAQs we have discussed.

If you read very carefully, and understand both Mr. Lynch's weak writing skills and his penchant for very limited answers, I think you'll see the inconsistencies are due to extrapolations beyond his exact words.

I think the inconsistencies in interpretation are due to some readers reading the whole answer versus some readers picking and choosing sentences within a paragraph. I personally believe John Lynch's inconsistencies are due to John Lynch believing he is allowed to create law via his interpretations versus provide guidance as to the law as it exists and has been interpreted by FAA legal & the NTSB. YMMV.

I would still like to see any example you can put forth in which an RC overruled and turned back an enforcement action initiated by a FSDO inspector based on an AFS FAQ file interpretation.

I still maintain this is irrelevant question. I have an RC opinion (written) that contradicts one FAQ file answer/reference (minimum hours to add category). You actually believe the RC will allow an enforcement action to proceed on that FAQ answer/reference? You actually believe the RC doesn't have gate keeping authority as to whether or not an action will proceed? I have another RC opinion (different RC) that contradicts yet another FAQ file question (ATE required yes/no to instruct in aircraft). You really believe this RC will rollover, too, if someone pushes the FAQ file answer?

RC: "Yes, Judge, I know you are busy."
RC: "No, Judge, I don't believe it is appropriate to waste your time."
RC: "Yes, Judge, I agree it might behoove me to read the FAR 1.1 definitions before wasting your time."


But if you don't believe the RC is the enforcement process gate keeper, by all means, call your local RC and ask him/her how the process works.

I do NOT buy into your paraphrase. What I said on the other thread was that unless/until an FAA Counsel overrules an AFS FAQ file interpretation, the enforcement system will act on the AFS FAQ interpretation, and I both stand by that statement and think you said the same thing above.

Actually, to be correct, what you said was that UNLESS THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL overrules (versus "an FAA counsel" which you claim now) -- which is where this discussion started.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, to be correct, what you said was that UNLESS THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL overrules (versus "an FAA counsel" which you claim now) -- which is where this discussion started.

With that change (Chief or Regional), will you accept what I said?

BTW, when a counsel interpretation comes out contradicting an FAQ statement, the counsel is SUPPOSED to cc: AFS-800 (and, if it's an RC, AGC-200) so they can correct the FAQ, which (as can be seen in the FAQ) has happened on several occasions. At that point, there should be no contradiction remaining. If that doesn't happen, somebody hasn't fulfilled their responsibilities.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

With that change (Chief or Regional), will you accept what I said?

With respect to the one sentence, sure, as corrected it reflects how the system should work. Does the system actually work that way? IOW, do the FSDOs actually consult the FAQ file as a basis for enforcement? My personal experience indicates the answer to that question is a solid "Maybe".

With respect to the discussion as a whole (as it has galloped across multiple threads), I'm still unclear to me whether or not you realize that every enforcement action is reviewed by an RC at some point before the pilot is notified of a proposed dent in his/her pilot record. Yes, the pilot may become involved in the "investigation" prior to that point, but an investigation is not an enforcement action. Nor is it clear whether or not you realize that FAA legal (via the RC or the Chief Counsel if the RC is overruled) holds final say on whether or not any enforcement will proceed. Nor is it clear whether or not you realize that the RCs don't seem to feel at all "beholden" (for lack of a better word) to the FAQ file for interpretation in any way, shape, or form. IOW, in reaching their interpretations of the FARs, the RCs (and I suspect the Chief Counsel) rely on their legal training and FAR (including preamble) research, not on John Lynch's opinion. IOW, RC (and I suspect Chief Counsel) don't really care what John Lynch thinks/believes/states.

BTW, when a counsel interpretation comes out contradicting an FAQ statement, the counsel is SUPPOSED to cc: AFS-800 (and, if it's an RC, AGC-200) so they can correct the FAQ, which (as can be seen in the FAQ) has happened on several occasions. At that point, there should be no contradiction remaining. If that doesn't happen, somebody hasn't fulfilled their responsibilities.

Well, I know of two specific cases in which the somebody not fulfilling their responsibilities is John Lynch. IOW, he (or in one case "Flight Standards") was notified of RC opinions differing from John Lynch's published opinion (FAQ file) but for all outward appearances John Lynch simply thumbed his nose. You know of one such case since it was you who sent him the information.

 

[tonycondon]

Again, the answer given by Mr. Lynch is specifically limited to instrument training, and AFS has even said that while you do need an AMEL/AMES (as appropriate) rating on your pilot certificate, you don't need an AME rating on your CFI to give instrument training in a twin if you have the IA rating on both tickets -- another interpretation with which I disagree strongly, but which was cleared through AGC. You wouldn't believe the logic on this one, but it has to do with the order of phrases in 61.195(b)(1) and the fact that there are no type ratings on CFI tickets.

Ron,
I have a CFII friend who is in need of this interpretation. Can you provide it or point me in the right direction? Thanks

 

[bbchien]

Ron,
I have a CFII friend who is in need of this interpretation. Can you provide it or point me in the right direction? Thanks

Man I would NEVER stick my CFI-I-MEI ticket on something like this. I still think a 709 ride or at least an investigation is in the offing.

 

[tonycondon]

Bruce,
the story with this is the guy has been doing some instructing with an instrument student in a twin. Student is PP-MEL, instructor is CP-ASEL/MEL and CFI/IA. student is ready for checkride. Examiner (from the local FSDO) is saying that the instructor has to be an MEI to sign him off.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Bruce,
the story with this is the guy has been doing some instructing with an instrument student in a twin. Student is PP-MEL, instructor is CP-ASEL/MEL and CFI/IA. student is ready for checkride. Examiner (from the local FSDO) is saying that the instructor has to be an MEI to sign him off.

Smart examiner. There is a Mid-Atlantic regional counsel letter (Rev. Jim memory item as to exact RC who authored) stating that the FAQ file, Ron's advice, etc. is absolutely wrong--a CFI-IA providing instrument instruction in a multi must hold AMEL on both COM certificate and on CFI certificate.

BTW, another Rev. Jim memory item--the letter is addressed to Ron Levy.

 

[tonycondon]

Ed, Ill leave you and Rons argument over the FAQ file between you two. Im looking more for hard paper opinions rather than memory items. Got any?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Ed, Ill leave you and Rons argument over the FAQ file between you two. Im looking more for hard paper opinions rather than memory items. Got any?

JAN 6 2004

Capt Ronald B. Levy
Director, Aviation Sciences Program
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
30806 University Boulevard South
Princess Anne, MD 21853-1299

Dear Capt. Levy:

Your related question deals with the qualifications to provide instrument training corresponding to the category and class of the aircraft. As you point out, § 61.195(b) provides, “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.” You have indicated that some persons hold the belief that the possession of a CFI-IA authorizes the holder to provide instrument training without regard to the class rating held, a belief you do not share.

In construing § 61.195(b), we must rely on the plain language since it appears to be unambiguous and we are not aware of any agency-condoned practices that deviate. Section 61.195(b) refers specifically to category and class, as you have pointed out. The category of aircraft is airplane, but the class can consist of, for example, single engine, multiengine, land, and water (sea), as defined in 14 CFR 1.1. As provided in 61.195(b), to provide flight training, the instructor must bold both a pilot certificate and a flight instructor certificate with the category and class rating applicable to the training being provided. For example, an instructor must hold a pilot certificate and an instructor certificate, each with an airplane multiengine instrument rating, to give instrument training in a twin airplane.
...
Sincerely,

Loretta E. Alkalay

 

[tonycondon]

Thanks Ed

 

[poadeleted20]

I have a CFII friend who is in need of this interpretation.

Which one? Instrument in a twin or High Altitude? Here they both are:

High Altitude:

QUESTION: I have a question regarding the high altitude endorsement required by § 61.31(g)(1) and (2). This is the scenario:

The flight instructor’s qualifications are: Commercial Pilot Certificate – AMEL, Instrument Airplane, Flight Instructor Certificate ASE and Instrument Airplane, and has the § 61.31(f) high altitude endorsement.

The pilot’s qualifications are Commercial Pilot Certificate – ASEL and AMEL, Instrument Airplane, Flight Instructor Certificate ASE, AME, and Instrument – Airplane.

The make and model of the multiengine airplane that the high altitude training and endorsement is going to given in is a pressurized AC60 (Rockwell Turbo Commander) capable of flight over 25,000 feet. The flight instructor has more than 5 hours of PIC flight time in the AC60 airplane.

Note, the flight instructor does not hold the AME rating on his flight instructor certificate.

Note, the flight instructor only holds the Instrument Airplane rating on his flight instructor certificate.

My question is can the flight instructor give this pilot a high altitude endorsement and training in this pressurized AC60 (Rockwell Turbo Commander)?

As I read the FAQ for Part 61, I find several parallels where instruction given by a CFI (ASEL) who is rated as a multiengine commercial pilot in multiengine airplanes. One such example is outlined in Part 61FAQ’s Q&A#457.

“However, there is no regulatory requirement in Part 61, other than § 61.193(f) and § 61.195(f) that apply. There is nothing that legally prohibits a person who only holds a Flight Instructor-Instrument Airplane (CFII) rating only and has at least 5 hours of pilot-in-command flight time in the specific make and model of multiengine airplane per § 61.195(f) from giving the flight training required for the maneuver and procedure on “One engine inoperative during straight-and-level flight and turns (multiengine)” because the maneuver and procedure on “One engine inoperative during straight-and-level flight and turns (multiengine)” is a task associated with the Instrument-Airplane rating.”

As I read in the Part 61 FAQ’s Q&A‑457, the flight instructor in my scenario may give high altitude training and endorsement in an AC‑60 multiengine airplane because none of the requirements in § 61.31(g)(1) and (2) are specific to a multiengine airplane. I believe as long as the flight instructor has at least 5 hour of PIC flight time in the AC60 being used to give the high altitude endorsement training then nothing would appear to legally prohibit him from issuing the endorsement. Additionally, the high altitude endorsement in a pilots logbook is not specific to single or multiengine airplane. For the sake of this example, we could consider the flight instructor to be the flight instructor who will be giving the high altitude endorsement training. I see no difference between a flight instructor who is endorsed for the high altitude endorsement and the person who only holds a Flight Instructor Certificate - Instrument Airplane with respect to training in a multiengine airplane as long as the training does not include multiengine airplane tasks and areas of operations. Do you agree?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.195(b)(1) and § 61.31(g)(2); No, a person who only holds the Instrument-Airplane rating on his/her flight instructor certificate may not give the high altitude training and endorsement required by § 61.31(g) in a multiengine land airplane [e.g., AC60 (Rockwell Turbo Commander)]. The flight instructor would have to hold the AME rating on his/her flight instructor certificate. Per § 61.195(b)(1), “. . . .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 . . . .”

Furthermore, in response to your statement that “. . . . the high altitude endorsement [and training] in a pilots logbook is not specific to single or multiengine airplane . . . .,” I would agree in principle to that statement. However, the flight training that is required for the high altitude training and endorsement, as stated in § 61.31(g)(2), is not the kind of flight training that a flight instructor receives for the Instrument Airplane rating at the flight instructor certification level. Specifically, the kind of flight training required by § 61.31(g)(2) for the high altitude training and endorsement is:

(i) Normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 feet MSL;
(ii) Proper emergency procedures for simulated rapid decompression without actually depressurizing the aircraft; and
(iii) Emergency descent procedures.

None of the flight training required in subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of § 61.31(g)(2) for the high altitude endorsement are in the areas of operations and tasks that a flight instructor receives for the Instrument Airplane rating. As I previously stated in Q&A‑457, a person who only holds the Instrument‑Airplane rating on his/her flight instructor certificate may only give training on the following areas of operation and tasks that are associated with an Instrument-Airplane rating:

I. Preflight preparation
A. Weather information
B. Cross-country flight planning
II. Preflight procedures
A. Aircraft systems related to IFR operations
B. Aircraft flight instruments and navigation equipment
C. Instrument cockpit check
III. Air traffic control clearances and procedures
A. Air traffic control clearances
B. Compliance with departure, en route, and arrival procedures and clearances
C. Holding procedures
IV. Flight by reference to instruments
A. Straight-and-level flight
B. Change of airspeed
C. Constant airspeed climbs and descents
D. Rate climbs and descents
E. Timed turns to magnetic compass headings
F. Steep turns
G. Recovery from unusual flight attitudes
V. Navigation systems
Intercepting and tracking navigational systems and DME arcs
VI. Instrument approach procedures
A. Nonprecision instrument approach
B. Precision ILS instrument approach
C. Missed approach
D. Circling approach
E. Landing from a straight-in or circling approach
VII. Emergency operations
A. Loss of communications
B. One engine inoperative during straight-and-level flight and turns (multiengine)
C. One engine inoperative—instrument approach (multiengine)
D. Loss of gyro attitude and/or heading indicators
VIII. Postflight procedures
Checking instruments and equipment
{Q&A‑585}



Instrument training in a twin:

QUESTION: A person holds a Flight Instructor Certificate - Instrument Airplane only and wants to give instrument flight training on avionics in a multiengine land airplane (for example in a Cessna 310). The training that the flight instructor will be giving is not for the purpose of furtherance of a pilot certificate or rating. The training is merely for educational/informative purposes. The instrument flight training will be on: Air Traffic Control Clearances and Procedures - Holding Procedures; Navigation Systems - Intercepting and Tracking Navigational Systems and DMC ARCs; and Emergency Operations - Loss of Communications and Loss of Gyro Attitude and/or Heading Indicators.

What are the flight instructor certificate and ratings, pilot certificate and ratings, and flight experience the person must have to be in compliance with § 61.195(b) and (c)? Does the flight instructor have to have logged 5 hours of PIC flight experience in the Cessna 310?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.195(b), (c), and (f); The person must hold at least the following:

Flight Instructor Certificate Commercial Pilot Certificate
Instrument-Airplane Airplane Multiengine Land
Instrument-Airplane

or

ATP Certificate
Airplane Multiengine Land

The flight instructor would only have to have logged 5 hours PIC flight time in a Cessna 310 if the training was for the furtherance of a certificate or rating. Since you specifically stated in your question that the training was not for the furtherance of a certificate or rating but was for merely for educational/informative purposes, then the answer is no, the flight instructor would not need to have logged 5 hours PIC flight time in a Cessna 310.
{Q&A‑640}

 

[tonycondon]

Ok, so I take it that Eds letter from 2004 trumps the FAQ?

 

[tonycondon]

wait a second, nevermind. the FAQ is not dealing with training towards the IR and says you need a multiengine rating on CFI ticket anyway, doesnt it? This is not worded very well:

Flight Instructor Certificate Commercial Pilot Certificate
Instrument-Airplane Airplane Multiengine Land
Instrument-Airplane

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok, so I take it that Eds letter from 2004 trumps the FAQ?

The letter quoted by Ed was from the Regional Counsel. When I sent it to the FAQ writers, they took it to the Chief Counsel who overruled the RC and said it was as the FAQ file calls it. Guess the wording isn't as "unambiguous" as the first lawyer thought. And I agree that the FAQ segment is hard to read since the person who wrote it doesn't know how to use the tab key in Word.

 

[tonycondon]

Well in the case of the FAQ question, I can kind of understand it. But is very specific that it is NOT for training towards a license or rating. My friend is trying to do a IR for a guy in a twin, but he (the instructor) is not an MEI, he is a Commercial pilot - multiengine. the student is a private pilot multi. Bottom line is he cant do it. thanks all.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I had the ground portion signed off at CAMI when I went to the high altitude chamger. SIMCOM will do the in aircraft portion this weekend in a 414 sim is what I'm being told.

Dave

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The letter quoted by Ed was from the Regional Counsel. When I sent it to the FAQ writers, they took it to the Chief Counsel who overruled the RC and said it was as the FAQ file calls it. Guess the wording isn't as "unambiguous" as the first lawyer thought. And I agree that the FAQ segment is hard to read since the person who wrote it doesn't know how to use the tab key in Word.

You have the Chief Counsel opinion in writing? I've learned through experience that John Lynch's word/opinion is fairly worthless.

 

[bbchien]

You have the Chief Counsel opinion in writing? I've learned through experience that John Lynch's word/opinion is fairly worthless.

Wow. As I said, I would never be putting my certificate at risk. Sounds like this non CFI-MEI is so deperate for twin time that he's risking his certificate. Sad.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Wow. As I said, I would never be putting my certificate at risk. Sounds like this non CFI-MEI is so deperate for twin time that he's risking his certificate. Sad.

I'm with you, Bruce. I'd want the chief counsel's opinion in my hot hand before I bet my certificate that 61.195(c) didn't mean exactly as it literally reads. Some of the FARs are a bit ambiguous, but that isn't one of them. I sure wouldn't bet my certificates on a non-legally binding word document the FAA long ago pulled from circulation...

 

[poadeleted20]

You have the Chief Counsel opinion in writing? I've learned through experience that John Lynch's word/opinion is fairly worthless.

No, but I got a letter back from the EA RC saying "ignore previous letter -- Chief Counsel overruled" after I called Lynch and told him about the EA RC letter that said his FAQ answer wasn't legally correct. I got referred to some lawyer in the Chief Counsel's office who explained why the presence (or was it absence?) of a comma made it legally the way Lynch said, and he really didn't give a hoot whether it was safe/smart or not.