Company Flight Instructor

[moxiepilot]

@MidlifeFlyer already answered it. If it's not 135 or 121, it's a no go.

I agree, which is why I asked to see if the DPE could point to a supportive document. Things may have changed and I want the bases covered. But, I also believe it is not loggable.

It looks like some of the companies doing that flying advertise they're part 135 on their websites hence the confusion. Thanks for the clarification. Are all of the companies non-135 or is it company dependent?

As far as I am aware, all ISR flights are non-135. There might be a company or two, like Evergreen that do on demand operations. There is a company that flies intercountry flights in Dash-8s, but I forget who that is.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

I agree, which is why I asked to see if the DPE could point to a supportive document. Things may have changed and I want the bases covered. But, I also believe it is not loggable.

As far as I am aware, all ISR flights are non-135. There might be a company or two, like Evergreen that do on demand operations. There is a company that flies intercountry flights in Dash-8s, but I forget who that is.

Everything you need was already posted.

@moxiepilot, I am only aware of two situations in which the FAA considers an U.S. instructor to be an "authorized" instructor who may endorse training for another pilot and log it for themselves. If there is a third, I never heard of it.

• The basic 61.193 authorization requiring a CFI with applicable aircraft and instrument ratings.
• 61.167 which only authorizes an ATP who is a participant in an air carrier's approved training program to instruct pilots who are also participants in the air carrier's training program. That's how the FAA has interpreted the "in air transportation" language. IOW, bot the ATP and the "student" must be participants in a carrier's Part 135 or 121 training program. See the 2010 Creech interpretation.

 

[moxiepilot]

Everything you need was already posted.

Thank you for your input. If the DPE can offer additional, new information, I welcome it.

Just because you think the discussion should end does not make it so. Let's see why the DPE is responding contrary to what we both believe to be the answer, and maybe we can learn something new, mmmm kay?