135 Sic

[ksu_aviator]

I have just been assigned as on call for tonight as an "unofficial" SIC in a King-Air (I'm only qualified in the Jetstream 31/32). Supposedly I won't be on the paperwork so I'm not technically acting as SIC. My point was how do I explain that to the FAA when I get off the aircraft wearing a pilot's uniform, carrying my certificates and acting in every way as though I'm the SIC?

Any one have any incite? I think I know the answers, but I was hoping someone could point out a loop hole that would allow me to do this flight (if it comes to that). I don't want to have to take a stand against them this soon after getting hired.

 

[English]

The question is...would you be a 135 SIC or a 91 SIC?

If the answer is135 SIC, and you are not qualified...I'd say you are sounding a little under the weather and perhaps should call in sick if called out. When you are feeling better tomorrow, it'll be time to have a chat with your chief pilot.

If the answer is part 91 SIC, don't worry about it. You are not a required crewmember. You are just a passenger dressed in a dorky uniform riding upfront.

 

[Flymach2]

Hi...

Check § 135.245. You're fine to be SIC.

Regards

 

[puddlejumper]

Part 91 SICs

If the answer is part 91 SIC, don't worry about it. You are not a required crewmember. You are just a passenger dressed in a dorky uniform riding upfront.

English,
Aren't you kinda busting on all the non-required fractional FOs in the King Airs, PC-12s and CitationJets? I thought you were a frac pilot yourself, what's up with that? It was always my understanding that in a turbojet or over 12.5k a SIC was required unless the PIC had a single pilot type rating, and even then, if that PIC does his 12 month checks vs. BFR he could choose not to excercise his single pilot privilege. With that, I guess you're only busting on the turbo-prop fractional pilots and most of the corporate guys whose insurance requires a SIC.

I'll stop blabbering now. My advice, KSU, don't act as a required crewmember under 135 unless all your ducks are in a row. If they need to call up someone who is properly trained and documented, I'd insist on that, if I were you. If it's part 91 or the 135 is approved single-pilot, go for it. Just don't get caught operating anything 135 unless it is in the name of training.

-PJ
(edited for several typos, don't "bust" my chops ok?)

 

[avbug]

I don't think that English was "busting" on anybody (whatever that means).

KSU Aviator is not qualified in the King Air. He didn't indicate the type of operation, or the regulations under which it is operated. He didn't indicate weather his company is required to use a SIC in their operations, or weather he has had any familiarization with the aircraft and at least meets the Part 61 requirements for SIC, including operating experience.

Under Part 135, KSU Aviator cannot serve as SIC weather he's required or not, unless he meets the training and paperwork requirements of 135. Under Part 91, so long as he meets the basic requirements of familiarzation and 3 takeoffs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls, in accordance with 14 CFR 61.55, he's golden. If he has met those requirements, then he may serve as SIC under Part 91 operations, but not under Part 135. He will need to meet the additional company requirements for qualification as SIC under Part 135...and that means especially the paperwork.

It would be best to contact your supervisor (chief pilot directly if it's a small company) and get some clarification on the staffing for the airplane, if you feel you're not legal and qualified. I realize that being new to the company, you don't want to make waves, but you can't do what you can't do...always get clarification. Your employe should appreciate the effort.

If the OpSpecs don't require a SIC and you're simply there for insurance reasons, and are qualified under 61.55 (but not 135), you may go to meet the company needs (insurance, etc), but may not manipulate the controls. In this case, you're really a passenger with respect to legality, because you don't meet the company requirements for SIC in that aircraft under part 135. If you're not qualified at all in the airplane, you may go, so long as you understand you're not actually serving as SIC--and this assumes that you're not required in the airplane. In this case, you're a passenger either way.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I thought I had put in that it was 135, but I obviously neglected that.

As far as 135.245 is concerned, that is trumped by 135.293 which abbreviated says No certificate holder may use a pilot...unless in the last 12 months...has passed an oral or written exam on the systems for each type of aircraft to be flow (paraphrased).

That is where I took issue.

In this case, you're really a passenger with respect to legality

So how do I prove that to the feds? Its like I said, if I walk off that airplane looking like and acting like the SIC with a plane load of people saying I was the "copilot" how can I convence the FAA I had nothing to do with the flying?

 

[HS125]

If the operator has authorization to fly single pilot, you are not a required crewmember. However, the company can send you along because the insurance or the customer wants two pilots.

If anyone (FAA) asks, just tell them you are there as an observer to get experience for transition to the King Air. Make sure that the Captain puts it on the paper work that you are there as an observer.

And, if anyone asks about the uniform, just tell them the company requires you to wear your uniform when ever you ride along on observation flights.

This is not an uncommon practice in the 135 world. I'm not saying it's right, just that it happens every day.

 

[avbug]

You can't. The regulations don't trump each other, they compliment each other. In other words, you're beholden to each regulation; all of them. Further, if you look closely, a SIC under 135 is responsible for adhering to the PIC recency of experience requirements under 61.57...very often you need to read several different parts of the regulation to get the whole picture.

You still didn't state weather you are a required crewmember on this flight. The company may not use you, and you may not serve, as SIC under 135 unless you meet all the requirements for qualification in that airplane under 135, as SIC. It's that simple. If the company wants you to sit there, understanding that you can't act as SIC or touch the controls, that's great. Have a ball...but you're only a passenger.

If the passengers are sold a flight predicated on having two pilots fly them, and the flight is conducted under Part 135, and you're not qualified under Part 135 to act as SIC in the airplane, then you shouldn't be there. Again, you need to get clarification on that before you go...if you accept duty (even reserve duty) knowing this, it's a little late to play sick when you actually get called. You'll likely make your employer more upset by doing that than you could ever do by making a proper enquiery regarding duty before hand. Good luck!

 

[English]

puddlejumper,

I wasn't busting anybody. Sure, some operators use an SIC in the CJ, for example, but they can only do it legally under certain circumstances. At my company, for example, we are not authorized to use SICs in the CJ. The autopilot breaks, we are done.

Some operators have it in their ops specs that an SIC is required in the CJ. In those cases, an SIC on a 135 flight is perfectly legal.

You wrote....."It was always my understanding that in a turbojet or over 12.5k a SIC was required unless the PIC had a single pilot type rating, and even then, if that PIC does his 12 month checks vs. BFR he could choose not to excercise his single pilot privilege."


On part 91 flights the whole SIC thing is a can of worms. I think you are referring to regs applying to straight Citations flown single pilot in your remarks. There is no requirement in the CJ to have an annual check if typed single pilot. All one needs is a BFR.

 

[varicam]

puddlejumper,
Some operators have it in their ops specs that an SIC is required in the CJ. In those cases, an SIC on a 135 flight is perfectly legal.

You and a lot of other people have it bass ackwards. Safety is the issue, not limiting the logging of SIC time. The FAA wants the maximum safety that's practical in a given airplane, and requires a SIC for all Part 135 IFR operations (135.101). However, the FAA understands that a SIC is not practical in all types of airplanes and gives operators an out by offering an autopilot authorization in some circumstances (135.105). The key word here is "authorization". The operator can use or not use an authorization as he/she sees fit. Bottom line is a properly trained and checked pilot can act as SIC without regard to whether or not an autopilot authorization is held, or whether or not the PIC holds a single-pilot type rating.