CHIEF PLT CONCERNED REGARDING THE MISINFO INCLUDED IN THE FBO'S PHONE BOOK ADVERTISING.

Narrative

AS CHIEF FLT INSTRUCTOR OF PART 141 OP I HAVE NOTICED AND ADVISED THOSE I THINK ARE INVOLVED THAT THE AD IN THE PHONE BOOK ADVERTISING CHARTER AT COMPANY IS CONTRARY TO PART 135.31. I AM IN NO WAY INVOLVED OR RESPONSIBLE IN THESE; THEIR ACTIONS. NOR DO I HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THEIR ACTIVITIES. FURTHERMORE; HAVING JUST RECEIVED MY PHONE BOOK AND HAD FLT SCHOOL AD POINTED OUT TO ME FOR THE FIRST TIME I KNOW THAT AS CHIEF CFI THAT WE OFFER ONLY A PROVISIONAL PART 141 PVT PLT COURSE AND THAT AD VIOLATES FAR 141.23. WHEN I WAS BRIEFED INITIALLY BY COMPANY POI FROM THE SAN JOSE FSDO IT WAS MADE VERY CLR TO ME THE RESTRS OF PART 141 ADVERTISING AND I; IN TURN; MADE IT VERY CLR TO THE OWNER/OPERATOR OF COMPANY THAT THESE RESTRS WERE UNDERSTOOD AND NOT BE COMPROMISED. I HAD NO IDEA THAT THESE ADS WERE PLACED; THAT WE ADVERTISED IN THIS WAY AND WAS NEVER CONSULTED AS TO WHAT THEY SAID. AGAIN; I KNOW THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR A PROVISIONAL PART 141 PVT PLT AND PVT PLT TEST COURSE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ADVERTISEMENT TO THE CONTRARY OR THE VIOLATION OF FAR 141.23. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR HAS SINCE LEFT THE OP IN QUESTION BUT AT THE TIME WAS THE ONLY QUALIFIED PERSON TO OPERATE A 141 FLT SCHOOL. THE OP DID NOT HAVE THE 141 CERTIFICATION AS YET; NOR DID THEY HAVE A 135 CERTIFICATE. THEY ADVERTISED THAT THEY DID. RPTR VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS COULD REFLECT ON HER IF THE SALES PEOPLE MISREPRESENTED THE SIT.