Argument over valid time or not

[capt_zman]

Interviewed a young chap today who flies a PC12 for a fractional. He is flying in the right seat and has logged EVERY flight, either PIC or SIC (whenever sole manipulator of the controls). When I questioned him on this, same basic answer as, "Well the insurance company requires it."

Single pilot airplane, single engine, Part 91, I just can't see how this is legally logged SIC time. Can a 91 operator have legally binding Op Specs that would require an SIC??

 

[A Squared]

Capt Z man.

Short answer, no

see the "logging SIC time" thread.

 

[501261]

No he really can't log the SIC time.

This shouldn't even be an argument, if he logs SIC he either doesn't understand the FAR's or doesn't understand the limitations on the airplane.

If he logs PIC (which legally he can as sole manipulator), everything becomes fair game. Does he know the airplane's systems, and limitations? Does he know the company's operation's manual, and MEL?

Remember if you're logging PIC (logging, not acting) as "sole manipulator" (which a lot of us disagree with, but understand that it’s legal), you are putting pen to paper that you are Pilot In Command of that airplane. You better know that airplane as well as or better as the "Acting" PIC.

 

[Jim]

The new part 91K for fractional operators requires a SIC on any flight carrying pax. If his company has implemented 91K, he is a required crew memeber and can legally log it.

Also, a lot of fractionals operate under part 135 in addition to part 91. They might have 135 opspec requiring a SIC and than he copuls legally log for any 135 flights.

 

[bart]

Whatever, he will show up for an interview like some guy did with me that had 500 hours of sic time in a C90. I told him he could have the job if he could show me in the FARs how he could log sic time in a C90, he produced a letter from AIG to the operator of the King Air, nice try, but I then handed him the FAR/AIM and sid show me in here. We were finished 5 munutes later.

These guys will learn when they go to interview for a job, that though they may have garnered some experience, they will get real embarrassed on their lack of understanding of the FARs.

 

[igneousy2]

No he really can't log the SIC time.

If he logs PIC (which legally he can as sole manipulator), everything becomes fair game. Does he know the airplane's systems, and limitations? Does he know the company's operation's manual, and MEL?

Remember if you're logging PIC (logging, not acting) as "sole manipulator" (which a lot of us disagree with, but understand that it’s legal), you are putting pen to paper that you are Pilot In Command of that airplane. You better know that airplane as well as or better as the "Acting" PIC.

I disagree with this statement...

You can log as sole manipulator and still not be the PIC, 61 says that you can log PIC when you are the PIC OR when you are sole manipulator.



You can also log SIC and PIC at the same time, I am dual qualified as CA/FO at my 121 airline I log PIC whenever I am acting as CA and PIC & SIC when I am an FO and it's my leg. (I also have a seperate column for "airline interview" PIC).

I started doing it for insurance purposes (they love to see lots of "PIC"), it probably doesn't make much difference anymore but I guess old habits die hard.

Later

 

[pullmyfinger]

Explain this

The how do you explain the SIC programs that many operators have (such as Airnet) that allows logging of SIC time in Barons?

I always wondered about that one however their local FSDO has no problem at all with it.

 

[A Squared]

The how do you explain the SIC programs that many operators have (such as Airnet) that allows logging of SIC time in Barons?.

Easy. It's not legal to log the time. The folks with the SIC programs are selling a fraudulent service. Yes it is legal to have a person properly trained and qualified under Part 135 sit in the right seat of the baron and do some of the flying. No, it is not legal for them to log SIC time (in most cases)
If you go to Airnet's website you will find links to pages where Airnet concedes that in most cases, it is not legal for the SIC to log SIC time. You will also find out that Airnet no longer offers an SIC program. Hmmmmmm....I wonder why they cancelled the program and changed their tune from "You can log SIC time" to "You cannot log SIC time" ????? Maybe they caught some heat for it because it wasn't legal?

As far as the".....local FSDO has no problem at all with it" that's not particulatly relevant. The local FSDO cannot change the regulations. They can give "wiavers" for certain regulations, but those are specific, listed regulations which are waivable. You'll find a list in Subpart J of Part 91. There's about 40 of them. The regulations which address logging time are in Part 61. There are no waivable regulations listed in Part 61.



BTW, Jim is correct, if the PC-12 was operated under Part 91, subpart K, the SIC time *may* be legal. Depends on when it was logged. SUbpart K didn't existbefore September 2003. SIC time logged in a PC-12, or a King Air 200, or any other single pilot fractional airplane before September 2003 is fraudulent.

 

[501261]

True you can log SIC time in a PC-12 if it’s in your OPSPEC’s (135) or management specs (91K, 91.1015). However the applicant’s response to how he was logging it was “the insurance requires it.” As we all know, insurance doesn’t cut it.

Also, there are a number or “Fractional” operators that are fractional in name only and are operating under 91.501 or (even worse) 134 ½. There’s a number or companies out there that are selling shares of an airplane, that haven’t been bothered to set up a 91K operation

 

[rcbullock]

If you go to Airnet's website you will find links to pages where Airnet concedes that in most cases, it is not legal for the SIC to log SIC time. You will also find out that Airnet no longer offers an SIC program. Hmmmmmm....I wonder why they cancelled the program and changed their tune from "You can log SIC time" to "You cannot log SIC time" ????? Maybe they caught some heat for it because it wasn't legal?


-------------
I think the reason was that because they had long duty times and maybe flight times, they had a waiver to have an SIC for those reasons. And since the SIC was required, it was of course loggable.

The SIC program isn't on right now because they have tons of people applying who have the PIC mins or close, so there's no reason to have it. It was for building time and experience to meet the PIC mins and move over to the left seat. It was a program that made sense to me.