Dual Received in King Air 350

[aroundtheblock]

Asquared, I agree with you about an ATP playing instructor. As for aiding a young up and coming pilot log turbine time, I see no fault in signing his logbook, as a current MEI and typed 350 driver. Otherwise he could not prove his time and committment to learning his chosen craft, regardless if it is 5 or 35 hours. Any low time pilot sitting in any King Air will be learning something new for awhile. Heck, I have over 11,000 hours and 4 types now and having flown for the airlines for 8 years before being furloughed I now fly a BE-300. I'm still learning something new every day. If I was hiring a new pilot, which I do from time to time, and 2 guys were equal but 1 guy had logged 100 hours dual in a 350 legally and 1 guy said I could have but I knew I couldn't log it so I didn't, which guy should I hire?

 

[A Squared]

As for aiding a young up and coming pilot log turbine time, I see no fault in signing his logbook, as a current MEI and typed 350 driver. Otherwise he could not prove his time and committment to learning his chosen craft, regardless if it is 5 or 35 hours. Any low time pilot sitting in any King Air will be learning something new for awhile. Heck, I have over 11,000 hours and 4 types now and having flown for the airlines for 8 years before being furloughed I now fly a BE-300. I'm still learning something new every day.

Yeah, we're all learning, all the time ... or at least *should* be, but learning something is not the same as receiving instruction.

If I was hiring a new pilot, which I do from time to time, and 2 guys were equal but 1 guy had logged 100 hours dual in a 350 legally (emphasis added) and 1 guy said I could have but I knew I couldn't log it so I didn't, which guy should I hire?

there's the rub, logged legally. Taking a routine flight in which instruction is not given and logging it as instruction given is no more legal than logging instrument time when you were in a clear blue sky with no hood the entire time, or logging night time during the day. putting that time in a specific column in hte logbook means you are attesting that some condition or action was in fact occuring (instrument flight, night, instruction, whatever) if that condition didn't exist, you are not justified in filling in that column. Dual given is logged to form a record of instruction occuring, not as a mneans of logging flight time which otherwise would not be legal to log.


It's a difficult situation, flying as a co-pilot in a single pilot multi-engine turbine aircraft can be valuable experience, however in some cases, it's not legal to log it. One approach I've seen was when I was interviewing candidates for a pilot position at a former employer. One guy listed on his resume that he had 200 hours of *unlogged* king air 200 time. That told me that he had some valuable experience, and it also told me that he was astute enough about the regulations to know that it wasn't legal to log it, and that he wasn't misrepresenting the time (i.e. claiming it was dual instruction wneh it wasn't.) in order to rationalize putting the time in his logbook. He was the guy we offered the job to.

 

[paulsalem]

It is a King Air 350 (see first post). The flights are all part 91, and the PIC is an MEI and obviously, type rated. So I'm leagal to log Dual Received, assumming he gives me instruction.

Thanks all for the help

 

[aroundtheblock]

Paul, you are correct.

Asquared, I too do not condone falsifying one's logbook. That being said, teaching in a King Air 350 is far different from teaching primary or instrument students. I don't need the right seater to put on a hood or try to track a radial. If he needs work on that he's not ready for a King Air. There is alot a low time guy like Paul here can learn from observing. If I could get him in the left seat for some stick time great, but he can learn just as much from the right seat. An instructor can teach by demontrating piloting techniques which a low time guy might not have been exposed to. Cockpit management and CRM is vital skills a pilot needs and one can learn them better in a real setting than by reading it in a book. If we're in an airplane, and he's learning something either directly, by my instruction (teaching) or indirectly by observation (thus my demonstration), then I see that as dual given. By implying that he would be falsifying his logbook by putting this time in also implies the MEI is lying by signing it. If the 2 guys are actually on the flight and in the cockpit, as a MEI I don't have to answer to anyone if it was all dual or not. My signature is enough. You arguement that unless he is performing basic pilotting skills to count as dual given is ludicrous. If that was true, then every time you go back into the cabin to talk to the boss or to get him a drink, then you'd have to omit that time from your logbook. You said you hired some guy who says he has alot of time he didn't want to log. I look at it another way. The guy who is putting legal real time in his logbook is making a statement and standing behind it. I've got some Concorde time and I flew the Spirit of St Louis once, but I didn't want to log it either (yes, I'm being facetious).

 

[A Squared]

Aroundtheblock,


Let's try a hypothetical situation:

Let's say you hire a low time right seater for the king air. Lets say his name is Fred. OK the first flight out with Fred is flight training, it's gonna be. Anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves. So's the next one, and the one after that. Fast forward to 2 years later, Fred's still flying with you. He's flown the king air 1,000 hours. You go for a flight to wherever the boss is going. It's Freds leg. He does his duties professionally, without prompting. Destination is Low IFR with a gusty 15 knot crosswind. Fred flies the approach well, to better than ATP standards. Not *exactly* the way you would have done it, Fred tends to put the gear down a little earlier than you would while intercepting the GS, but you are reasonable enough to recognize that it's more of a style thing, and you're respectful enough to not micro-manage. The landing is decent, not a greaser but on the mark, on speed and no drift. The whole flight, the only things you've said to him (other than some bull$hitting about sports while at cruise) has been checklist items, and routine airspeed and altitude callouts. That's not flight training. Somewhere between hour 1 and hour 1000, it's stops being flight training, and it becomes just two people doing a job that they both know fairly well. Where exactly does it stop? I don't know, there is no line in the sand, no litmus test, but someplace in there it has stopped being flight training. That point is probably much closer to hour one than it is to hour 1000. At some point, yes it does become dishonest to claim that it is flight training.

 

[aroundtheblock]

Asquared,

[/QUOTE]If you really are getting instruction, that raises the question of *why* you are getting instruction. You say that you have 35 hours logged. I think that it's safe to say that a large portion of this time is enroute, on or off the airways, so why do you have 25-30 hours of instruction logged on flying in a straight line? Are you really so inept that you need constant instruction to stay on an airway?

Somehow we jumped from saying a guy had 30 hours to a guy having 1000 hours dual given in a King Air. Nowhere did I say Paul here should log the rest of his pilot career as dual given. All my references were for a low time pilot. As in Paul's example, 400 total time and a fraction of that being multiengine is low time in my opinion. The average flight department logs around 300-500 hours a year. Lets hope that Paul has moved over to the left seat well before 1000 hours or 2 to 4 years of instruction. Hey, I found we do agree on something. As the MEI, as I stated before, as long as I believed he was learning under my supervision then I'd be happy to help him out by signing his logbook, if he so desired. I'd say in reference to your hypothetical situation that I have done a great job and a great service to aviation.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

All models of Kingair (and the Beech 1900) are Type Certificated for One Pilot. The only time SIC can be logged in a Kingair is for the type of operation. IFR Passenger carrying operations under Part 135 would be the most common example. In order to log SIC in such a manner, you would need to be trained and checked in accordance with the operating company's approved training program for that aircraft. That is how "charter" companies do it. How "fractional" companies do it, I do not know.


Ray

The only time that logging SIC in the KA type aircraft would be during Part 135 IFR pax ops. However, you would only be able to do this if the aircraft did not have an autopilot and/or the Op Specs did not have an authorization for the SIC exemption due to autopilot installation/usage (Reference 135.105). I have seen very few KA's that did not have an autopilot with the appropriate authorizations utilized in 135 (except for GLA and that being Part 121/135). So you would even still be hard pressed to log SIC in a King Air during P. 135 IFR Pax ops... That's my take on it atleast....

 

[aroundtheblock]

Very true Workin'stuff. Back when I flew a 200 Part 135, The autopilot was acting weird. I told the chief pilot at the time that if it did it again I'd have to write it up. I told him that unfortunately that would ground the airplane. After the funny look he gave me I told him that without the AP we would need a SIC in lieu of it. Unfortunately, none of our pilots were trained as a crew or as an SIC and our POI said we couldn't do it. Our POI said 2 captains couldn't go together because in our King Air, none we trained as a crew. We always flew a 2 crew, but as far as the FAA was concerned the right seater was a passenger not a crewmember. I looked it up and he was right. To add to this neither King Air had a CVR wich is required for a King Air 200 2 pilot crew Part 135.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

It's a very tricky issue logging SIC in those type of aircraft. I'm kind of glad that I never had those opportunities so that I didn't lose sleep at night worrying about my logbook's integrity. That aside, best of luck out there to everyone with those prospects.

 

[A Squared]

Somehow we jumped from saying a guy had 30 hours to a guy having 1000 hours dual given in a King Air. Nowhere did I say Paul here should log the rest of his pilot career as dual given. All my references were for a low time pilot.

Around the block. I realize that you're not going to be flying with someone for 1000 hours. I was using an extreme example to make the point that at some point, it becomes a stretch to call it "flight training". Sorry if I didin't explain that clearly. Anyway. It's a tough situation, in something like the king air the experience can be valuable (depending on whether the captain views the right seater as a crewmember or a seatcover), and you want to give credit for that experience, but it's not always easy to do that. There's a lot of bad advice out there on how to do it. I think we agree more than we disagree on this whole thing.

 

[samoores]

Just to add a different wrinkle to this issue, I flew C-12C's for the Air Force back in the Gulf War (over 1000 hours in 14 months). The C-12C is a King Air 200 (MGW 12,500), yet the Dash 1 (operating manual) states that the required minimum crew is two pilots. Therefore, SIC time would clearly be legal in the C-12. I believe the Army flies the U-21 (similar/same as King Air 90) with two pilots as well.

 

[A Squared]

Just to add a different wrinkle to this issue, I flew C-12C's for the Air Force back in the Gulf War (over 1000 hours in 14 months). The C-12C is a King Air 200 (MGW 12,500), yet the Dash 1 (operating manual) states that the required minimum crew is two pilots. Therefore, SIC time would clearly be legal in the C-12. I believe the Army flies the U-21 (similar/same as King Air 90) with two pilots as well.

Yeah, that's thing, C-12 co-pilot time is legit, beech 200 co-pilot time at a part 91 operator probably isn't. Same airplane, different organization.

 

[STINKER]

I agree that dude needs to be teabagged!! Dork!

 

[Kingairrick]

If we put in wing lockers, or 2 more seats, then it would require an SIC per FAA regs.

Wing lockers don't have anything to do with it. They are a factory option now, still single pilot airplane. What you are thinking of is the baggage compartment seats. Because the 350 is Cert. under Part 25, the baggage seats make it have "10 or more passenger seats." That's where the sic required comes in.
Interesting side note: the 300 (same type rating) is cert. under SFAR 41C (not part 25,) still legal with the baggage seats single pilot, even though it brings the total to 10. It makes no sense, but those are the rules...