can't figure this out

[105viking]

here is the situation:

da-20 freighter lands at night and three people de-plane, the CA, FO, and a ride-along passenger. the passenger is rated as a private pilot as/mel with NO instrument rating. as they de-plane, the "passenger" remarkes that he had just logged another 4 hours jet, and receives a compliment on the landing that he just made.

here are my questions:

1. can this time be legally logged, and if so how? i am familiar with the part 61.55 requirements for SIC and understand that to specify training for SIC qualification must be accomplished during day vfr or day ifr. if this time can be logged, exactly what conditions must be met?

2. can a pilot who is not instrument rated serve as sic on an ifr flight? 61.55(a)(2) says no.

3. is there a limit to the amount of time one can log towards sic qualification in a given type, and if there is none, was there ever?

4. will this flying time be a red flag at a future interview for the ride-along?

5. what are the current thoughts of the faa with regard to part 135 repositioning flights, are they considered part 91?

this just seemed strange to me.

i've seen some posts on here about some place that has a dc-3 ride along program, but i
am assuming that it was for (aside from having mins) qualified pilots.

your thoughts please.

 

[pilotyip]

Typical Part 91 ride along training

goes on all the time, the PIC is a company instrcutor pilot, he gives nonn-qualifed pilots instruction on Part 91 legs until the guy cna pass a check ride, the inst thing might be a problem unless it is a VFR flt.

 

[mike1mc]

This brings up another question...

Can a properly rated and qualified 135 SIC applicant log the time they are in the right seat of the aircraft with the company check airmen as SIC?

 

[pilotyip]

can he log it?

can he log it? yes, is it legal time probably not. a year from now if it is his only DA-20 time, it means nothing to anyone, except for bar room braging rights. If a year from now he has 300 hrs DA-20 SIC, it will probably be looked at as legit time. As far as flying the DA-20 goes, it flies like a trainer airplane, very honest, very controlable as long as everything works like it is supppose to. So again he has not proven anything about his flying skill just becasue he flew a DA-20. BTW I have nothing against the DA-20 I love flying it, it is a great old man's airplane, easier to fly than the DC-3, BE-90 or B-17, kinda like my C-172

 

[105viking]

Re: Typical Part 91 ride along training

goes on all the time, the PIC is a company instrcutor pilot, he gives nonn-qualifed pilots instruction on Part 91 legs until the guy cna pass a check ride, the inst thing might be a problem unless it is a VFR flt.

who do you know that flies around for four hours vfr in a falcon? i know that under the proper circumstances that a two man airplane can be flown without a "qualified" sic, but the trainee sic, in this example, has got to have an instrument rating as far as i see it. if he doesn't, then he is not the only one who is pushing the envelope of federal regulation.

i don't think that crew on this flight would intentionally bust regs, but this has me stumped.

 

[avbug]

105Viking,

To answer your questions in order:

1. Unless the private pilot is type rated in the airplane, he or she cannot log PIC. That only leaves SIC. If the private pilot was qualified under 61.55, then he or she may have legally logged the time.

However, you stated that the private pilot did not hold an instrument rating. He or she could not, therefore, have acted as SIC during the course of the flight under any circumstances.

One might conceivably argue that the PIC, who may have been a flight instructor, may have been providing instruction to the private pilot. This is a week and ineffectual arguement, and does not address the fact that the person being flown (private pilot, here) doesn't qualify as an SIC for lack of an instrument rating. Therefore, even with the PIC as an instructor, the private pilot could not have served as SIC, and cannot log the time as SIC or PIC.

2. A pilot who is not instrument rated may not serve as second in command under IFR. Further, that person may not log time as SIC under IFR, in accordance with 14 CFR 61.51(f)(2). An instrument rating is required to act as SIC under IFR, and it is also a requirement for the logging of SIC, when an instrument is required. While there is a clear difference between the logging of time, and the acting as PIC or SIC, in this case, the individual in question may not act as SIC, nor may he or she log the time.

3. No limits, but along the lines of what Pilotyip pointed out, SIC time is really rather worthless unless it leads to a job: PIC position in type.

4. Will this time throw up a red flag? If anybody looks, it will. Among other things, it shows an effort to pad the logbook, a gross misunderstanding and ignorance of the regulation, and it looks out of place. The effect is to make the person putting this time out as experience to appear as an idiot. Put it this way, it should throw up a red flag. Weather or not it does is a matter of weather or not he gets caught.

5. This one isn't so simple. Repositioning flights may be conducted under part 91, though the airplane remains a part 135 airplane so long as the certificate holder continues to use it for Part 135 operations. Part 135 duty and rest times apply (though that's another very lengthy discussion). The private pilot is not prohibited from touching the controls during a part 91 leg, but be careful. If something other than Company Materials and company employees are aboard, or the flight is connected to other revenue purposes, it can be construed as a part 135 flight (and that includes the carriage of the private pilot, under certain circumstances).

At a minimum, a pilot logging time in a 135 operation, when not qualified in that operation, should note that the particular leg logged was a Part 91 leg, and it's a good idea to note the reason (empty, repositioning, etc). I say this because company pilots, as well as their aspiring friends, have come to enforcement action in the past when an inspector spied time in their logs not consistant with company operations (logging with a pal, etc). The bottom line is be careful.

I recall an individual a while back who interviewed for a regional airline. He had certain ride along time with a friend, in which the friend had been letting him log fly all the legs. The kid, not being the sharpest in his respective box of crayons, logged everything he flew. In the interview, the interviewer asked him about his flight time. Turned out the interviewer had been employed by that same company, and recognized the number. Not only did the kid not get the job, but he suffered certificate enforcement action, as did his friend who let him fly. Use caution.

 

[105viking]

thanks for the informative reply, avbug.