Argument over valid time or not

[A Squared]

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

Yeah, agreed, insurance requirement's don't matter. and it would have to be a real fractional operation operating under Subpart K.



>>>>>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.

Yeah, that's one the few occasions where the SIC could legally log SIC time. If the crew was scheduled for more than 8 hours, The SIC could log SIC time. It doesn't, however mean that *all* time can be logged as SIC time, just those days that they are scheduled for more than 8 hours.

 

[88_MALIBU]

Could he have logged it if it was as "Dual received"?

 

[avbug]

A baron operated under Part 135 under IFR requires either a SIC, or a single pilot with autopilot authorization. Even when the PIC is qualified to fly with an autopilot, the option exists to throw a qualified SIC in the right seat. In this case, even though the type certification doesn't require a SIC, the regulations under which the flight is operated do, and the SIC may legally and properly log SIC flight time.

Additionally, when the SIC acts as sole manipulator of the controls in the baron, he or she may log PIC (but may be illadvised to do so for interview and appearance reasons, under Part 135).

There is no good reason why a pilot cannot show SIC time in a C90 King Air. A pilot who has operated that airplane under Part 135, under IFR has operated where a SIC is required, or an autopilot exemption for single pilot operation. Again, the operator may be using the option of using a qualified SIC in lieu of the autopilot, in which case the SIC has become a required crewmember, and may log the time as such.

 

[A Squared]

A baron operated under Part 135 under IFR requires either a SIC, or a single pilot with autopilot authorization. .

That is true for passenger operations, not so for cargo, which was the context of my comments (airnet and similar operators). Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

There is no good reason why a pilot cannot show SIC time in a C90 King Air. A pilot who has operated that airplane under Part 135, under IFR has operated where a SIC is required, or an autopilot exemption for single pilot operation. Again, the operator may be using the option of using a qualified SIC in lieu of the autopilot, in which case the SIC has become a required crewmember, and may log the time as such.

My reference to king air SIC time was in the context of Part 91 operations, including fractional operations prior to the adoption of Subpart K. Again, maybe I could have been clearer in my comments.