Do any cargo companies hire VFR pilots

[Archer38416]

that are below part 135 mins? I know some companies will hire when you are close tp 1200 hours, but what about any other situations.

 

[icefr8dawg]

that are below part 135 mins? I know some companies will hire when you are close tp 1200 hours, but what about any other situations.

A company I worked for used to let anyone ride along and then hire them when they got hours. Some guys would sit right seat after work for a year or however long it took. Then, one of the "baggage handlers" crashed an airplane before the captain could catch it and the FAA told us not to do that any more... They mostly served as human autopilots tho.
There was one operator in the North Carolina area that had vfr guys giving skyrides in the company Lance's and eventually upgrading to charter but that was five years ago. I remember hearing about a similiar operation in Daytona too, bout five years ago as well. I wonder if insurance is a big reason you don't hear about many VFR operations these days.

 

[DC-8_FR8]

Maybe down in the islands, I remember they did it back in the early 90's.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Ran into a guy at Jackson (HKS) who FLX had chartered to do a run. Had a nice 210, and said he was VFR-only. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the company. I think they were out of New Orleans, maybe? He said something about them operating seaplanes. Wish I could be more help.

 

[ePilot22]

135 VFR job.

These guys have a posting on Climbto350 right now.


http://www.americanaviationwest.com/about_us.htm


Never heard of 'em so I'm not sure if it's good or not, but here ya go...



eP.

 

[Ill Mitch]

You could go to Alaska and hunt around. Bethel would probably be the place to go. (So I am told, anyway).

 

[PA-44Typed]

Spend the summer season in NW Montana, mid-April to mid-October. 182s and Turbo 207 on line. Commercial required with around 500TT. E-mail resume` or call 406-858-2493.

---from www.dropzone.com----

 

[brokethemold]

Southern Sea Planes

Ran into a guy at Jackson (HKS) who FLX had chartered to do a run. Had a nice 210, and said he was VFR-only. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the company. I think they were out of New Orleans, maybe? He said something about them operating seaplanes. Wish I could be more help.

the name of this company is southern seaplanes. they are based out of a small field near NAS new orleans. the do hire VFR pilots. they will have you fly there day runs and "ride" with one of the IFR guys to get you 1200. the also have a float plane operation that requires a contract. i know they have had a lot of folks leaving lately, mainly to Paragon. so chances are they are looking.

 

[wmudriver]

There is a place in ELP that fly's 310's VFR from ELP to some place in Mexico and up to ABQ...can't remember the name of it though.

 

[NoPax]

There is a place in ELP that fly's 310's VFR from ELP to some place in Mexico and up to ABQ...can't remember the name of it though.

It wouldn't be Aero Charter & Transport out of ABQ...if so, they want 1200 hrs and 150 multi.

The reason for VFR is probably because of Mexico. I remember being on a 421 flight down there (as a pax), and the pilot had to get IFR and his clearance took him up to FL220.

 

[jet1man]

I flew for Air Grand Canyon with 500 hours TT. They had a bunch of 207's a 206, and a 182. This was in the late 90's. After that I went to ABQ to fly a 210 with less than 1200 hrs. Just couldn't do IFR until I got my 1200 hrs and IFR checkout.

 

[flyin4pennies]

Your kidding right!!

"Sorry Mr. Johnson we can't get your package to you/get you back home today because our pilot can't fly in clouds."

I just can fathom this living in the Northeast.

 

[TheBaron]

VFR freight dog? Don't count on it. Like flyin4pennies said, no fright operator would hire a Captain that couldn't get the job done when the weather is below VFR. And as far as those "ride along in the right seat to build time" jobs, like AirNet had at one time...the FAA decided quite a few years ago that you can't log right seat time in a single pilot operation. (Actually, you can log whatever the hell you want; it just isn't legitamate) Your best bet would be to stick with flight instructing until you have the 135 IFR minimums. If that isn't what you want then I know plenty of people that built time on fire patrol, pipe-line patrol, banner towing, and flying canyon tours.

 

[NoPax]

And as far as those "ride along in the right seat to build time" jobs, like AirNet had at one time...the FAA decided quite a few years ago that you can't log right seat time in a single pilot operation. (Actually, you can log whatever the hell you want; it just isn't legitamate)

My FAA Approved Ops Manual disagrees with you.

You can log the legs you fly as PIC - with the remark that you were 'sole manipulator of the controls'. At times an SIC is required (for cargo ops) if you have a particularly long run (ie over 8 hours).

This is a great way of getting on the job training, and exposing yourself to what you will be doing, by yourself, in a couple of weeks.

I'm completely against building time this way, but is excellent for experience sake.

 

[flyin4pennies]

Airnet still has an SIC program

See other posts for more info

 

[TheBaron]

My FAA Approved Ops Manual disagrees with you.

You can log the legs you fly as PIC - with the remark that you were 'sole manipulator of the controls'. At times an SIC is required (for cargo ops) if you have a particularly long run (ie over 8 hours).

This is a great way of getting on the job training, and exposing yourself to what you will be doing, by yourself, in a couple of weeks.

I'm completely against building time this way, but is excellent for experience sake.

"Sole manipulator of the controls" applies to Part 91 flying only. To log PIC time on a 135 leg (or 121,125) you must be current, qualified, and assigned as the PIC by the air carrier exercising operational control. An airplane certified for single pilot operation can have an SIC if the operation requires it (excess of 8 hours of flying or pax carrying with no auto-pilot) if stipulated in the approved company manual and OpSpecs but the SIC can still only log SIC even when he is "the sole manipulator of the controls." Sure it's great for building experience, but logging PIC when you are only an SIC or a ride-along is not legitimate.

 

[TheBaron]

Airnet still has an SIC program

See other posts for more info

AirNets old time building program in the Baron and AeroStar were specifically sited by an NTSB judge as illegal back in the late 90's. Someone who works there now may be able to provide information about changes they have made to their program to make it legitimate. Even still, you can't log PIC under 135 unless you are current, qualified, and assigned as PIC (and each flight can only have one PIC.) When any employer does a PRIA check, he's going to know whether or not you had a PIC or SIC qualification by your 8410's. If you are able to fool the Chief Pilot somewhere and get a job with bogus times...do you really want to work there?

 

[flyin4pennies]

Still, Airnet has an SIC program and there's an assigned POI to the company, so I doubt that it's Illegal.

Oh and by the way the NTSB can not make policy, they can only make recommedations to the FAA and /or other agencies.

Even still, you can't log PIC under 135 unless you are current, qualified, and assigned as PIC (and each flight can only have one PIC.)

Hence the term second in command (SIC)

 

[TheBaron]

Still, Airnet has an SIC program and there's an assigned POI to the company, so I doubt that it's Illegal.

Oh and by the way the NTSB can not make policy, they can only make recommendations to the FAA and /or other agencies.

With respect to operational and safety issues that may be true. When you get a violation and appeal it, it is the NTSB that decides your fate, not the FAA.



Hence the term second in command (SIC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to SIC's logging PIC time because they are sole manipulator on the controls. Can't happen under 135.
P.S. plenty of POI's have jobs with the FAA because they weren't qualified for anything else. I've worked with some truly exceptional ones, and a few that could barely find there way to work each morning.

 

[flyin4pennies]

AirNets old time building program in the Baron and AeroStar were specifically sited by an NTSB judge as illegal back in the late 90's.

Yeah you weren't clear.

The time building that pilot's get at AirNet is total time to meet FAR part 135 minimums to become PIC's. They are not doing it to get PIC time.

Also when I was in college, I visited NTSB headquarters in DC for a day. They went over their entire roll in aviation, how they fit into the equation, and what they can and can not do. One of the can not's are create, regulate, and/or enforce policy. Unless something has changed in the past 7 years I don't know how this can be.

 

[TheBaron]

Yeah you weren't clear.

The time building that pilot's get at AirNet is total time to meet FAR part 135 minimums to become PIC's. They are not doing it to get PIC time.

Also when I was in college, I visited NTSB headquarters in DC for a day. They went over their entire roll in aviation, how they fit into the equation, and what they can and can not do. One of the can not's are create, regulate, and/or enforce policy. Unless something has changed in the past 7 years I don't know how this can be.

Maybe I shouldn't try to type after being up all night. They uphold or override the FAA when it comes to FAA sanctions. I'm sure there are some real lawyers that can give the exact specifics. All I know is, I've been called twice as a professional witness by the FAA in actions against pilots. On one side of the court was the prosecution (our friends...the FAA), on the other was the pilot and his defense lawyers. Sitting up front, presiding over it all, was what I was told was an NTSB judge. I also know that when they make final rulings in these cases, they carry the weight of precedence. We use to get a newsletter to keep abreast of interpretations of the FAR's. Duty/rest cases were quite common and previous findings were usually sited.

Any lawyers out there that are experts in this?

 

[fre8ersic]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to SIC's logging PIC time because they are sole manipulator on the controls. Can't happen under 135.
P.S. plenty of POI's have jobs with the FAA because they weren't qualified for anything else. I've worked with some truly exceptional ones, and a few that could barely find there way to work each morning.

Section 135.115 (14CFR 135.115) governs who may manipulate the controls of the aircraft being operated under part 135, this section states, in pertinent part that no person may manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during a flight conducted under part 135 unless that person is a pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft.

As a result, a part 135 operator may only designate a pilot as SIC and allow the individual to manipulate the controls of the aircraft if the pilot is qualified
in order for the SIC to be qualified in the aircraft he/she must meet requierments under sections 135.245 and the initial and recurrnet training and testing requierments under section 135.293 (14 CFR 135.293)

Therefore, SIC pilots (part 135) can legally log PIC time under the sole manipulator of controls rule if (qualified and employed) but may not log SIC time unless an SIC is required for type of aircraft and/or operations.

 

[TheBaron]

Nice try but I think you are neglecting this little regulation.

§ 135.109 Pilot in command or second in command: Designation required.


(a) Each certificate holder shall designate a—

(1) Pilot in command for each flight; and

(2) Second in command for each flight requiring two pilots.

(b) The pilot in command, as designated by the certificate holder, shall remain the pilot in command at all times during that flight

You can only have one PIC per flight...black (or blue) and white.

 

[AZFr8tPilot]

Logging PIC

Most major airlines only recognize PIC time as time in which an individual was designated as the PIC for the flight. So (irrespective of what regulation has to say) if an individual was logging the time in let's say a turbine aircraft, he/she woud want to have an additional column in his/her logbook reflecting the true PIC time (in which he/she was designated as PIC) and time simply reflecting sole manipulator of controls.

 

[NoPax]

Nice try but I think you are neglecting this little regulation.

§ 135.109 Pilot in command or second in command: Designation required.


(a) Each certificate holder shall designate a—

(1) Pilot in command for each flight; and

(2) Second in command for each flight requiring two pilots.

(b) The pilot in command, as designated by the certificate holder, shall remain the pilot in command at all times during that flight

You can only have one PIC per flight...black (or blue) and white.

Acting as and logging PIC are two completely separate issues.

Example: Two multi engine rated private pilots fly a 421. One is current, and qualified to fly it, therefore is acting as PIC. He has high performance, and high altitude (and complex) endorsements. The other pilot, flies the airplane, isn't current, doesn't hold a current medical, and doesn't hold high performance or high altitude endorsements, but can log the time as "PIC". The current and qualified pilot, although acting as PIC cannot log any of the flight as PIC.

Therefore, SIC pilots (part 135) can legally log PIC time under the sole manipulator of controls rule if (qualified and employed) but may not log SIC time unless an SIC is required for type of aircraft and/or operations.

Exactly what my FAA approved Operations Manual states. He can log the time as SIC because of the 'operation'.

How one goes about keeping a record of who was assigned the airplane as PIC and SIC is completely up to that individual - for their Major Airline interview - but its not worth hardening the arteries over it.