|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : teb|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||general aviation : instructional|
|Make Model Name||Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng|
|Flight Phase||climbout : takeoff|
|Function||instruction : instructor|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
pilot : commercial
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 100|
flight time total : 1650
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||observation : air carrier inspector|
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||non adherence : far|
|Independent Detector||other other : unspecified|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Consequence||faa : investigated|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
Our company was investigated by the FAA on one of their annual base inspections. I am the charter training officer for the company and trained 2 pilots. The FAA inspector told me that I could not train the pilots because I do not have a multi-engine instructor rating. However, I had previously spoken to our principal operations inspector and asked him that question. I asked him if I could train our company pilots for charter operations since they are all multi engine rated and he said yes. I then proceeded to write the FAA a letter containing my qualifications in 8/88. I never received a reply. However, in 1/89 I went to inquire as to the status first officer my training officer letter. Our principal operations inspector told me he would write a letter approving me as the training officer and give it to me after he flew with me on the next flight check, which was set up on 2/89. On a later visit he showed me the completed letter. I told this to the FAA inspector but he was not satisfied. I don't feel I did anything unsafe or illegal. I feel that the safety reporting system can learn from this. I think a suggestion to avoid this problem would be a better system of communication between the FAA and the operators.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: REPORTER CHALLENGED BY ACI FOR GIVING TRAINING TO COMPANY MULTI ENGINE QUALIFIED PLTS WITHOUT A 'MULTI ENGINE INSTRUCTORS RATING.'
Narrative: OUR COMPANY WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE FAA ON ONE OF THEIR ANNUAL BASE INSPECTIONS. I AM THE CHARTER TRNING OFFICER FOR THE COMPANY AND TRAINED 2 PLTS. THE FAA INSPECTOR TOLD ME THAT I COULD NOT TRAIN THE PLTS BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE A MULTI-ENG INSTRUCTOR RATING. HOWEVER, I HAD PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TO OUR PRINCIPAL OPS INSPECTOR AND ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION. I ASKED HIM IF I COULD TRAIN OUR COMPANY PLTS FOR CHARTER OPS SINCE THEY ARE ALL MULTI ENG RATED AND HE SAID YES. I THEN PROCEEDED TO WRITE THE FAA A LETTER CONTAINING MY QUALIFICATIONS IN 8/88. I NEVER RECEIVED A REPLY. HOWEVER, IN 1/89 I WENT TO INQUIRE AS TO THE STATUS FO MY TRNING OFFICER LETTER. OUR PRINCIPAL OPS INSPECTOR TOLD ME HE WOULD WRITE A LETTER APPROVING ME AS THE TRNING OFFICER AND GIVE IT TO ME AFTER HE FLEW WITH ME ON THE NEXT FLT CHK, WHICH WAS SET UP ON 2/89. ON A LATER VISIT HE SHOWED ME THE COMPLETED LETTER. I TOLD THIS TO THE FAA INSPECTOR BUT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED. I DON'T FEEL I DID ANYTHING UNSAFE OR ILLEGAL. I FEEL THAT THE SAFETY RPTING SYS CAN LEARN FROM THIS. I THINK A SUGGESTION TO AVOID THIS PROB WOULD BE A BETTER SYS OF COM BTWN THE FAA AND THE OPERATORS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.