Do any cargo companies hire VFR pilots

[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.