FAA issues final rule on SIC type rating

[atldc9]

Here is the link, it gos into effect 9/6/2005.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-15376.htm

The summary is as follows:

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its pilot certification regulations to
establish a second-in-command (SIC) pilot type rating and associated
qualifying procedures. This final rule is needed to conform FAA pilot
type rating requirements to the International Civil Aviation
Organization pilot type rating standards. The intended effect of this
action is to allow U.S. flight crews to continue to operate in
international airspace without the threat of being grounded for not
holding the appropriate pilot type rating.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on September 6, 2005.

 

[Cardinal]

The final rule establishes two procedures for obtaining the SIC
pilot type rating. Under final Sec. 61.55(d), an individual who
satisfactorily completes the SIC familiarization training requirements
of 14 CFR 61.55(b) may apply for and receive a pilot type rating for
SIC privileges in a particular aircraft type. The SIC familiarization
training requirements are not new and have not been changed under this
final rule. Under final Sec. 61.55(e), an individual who
satisfactorily completes an approved SIC training program or
proficiency check under parts 121, 125, or 135 may apply for and
receive a pilot type rating for SIC privileges in a particular aircraft
type.

 

[minitour]

so...you get "training" and an endorsement, then an examiner gives you a new temp...no SIC "type" ride?

Hope I'm reading correctly...

-mini

 

[mattpilot]

no checkride?


Hows that different from what we have now?

 

[Chicken Taco]

no checkride?


Hows that different from what we have now?

It isn't, other than that you'll now get a certificate after an initial SIC ride/PC qualification. It's just more paperwork to make ICAO member states happy..

..CT

 

[minitour]

Is a "PIC Type ride" that much more expensive/difficult to pass than a SIC checkride? If not, would it just make sense to type both persons up front?

-mini

 

[bigD]

Is a "PIC Type ride" that much more expensive/difficult to pass than a SIC checkride? If not, would it just make sense to type both persons up front?

It's not, but at least regarding the 135 operations around here, they're reluctant to type the F/O (unless he/she's about to upgrade) because the type makes it easier for the F/O to jump ship and go somewhere else.

 

[minitour]

It's not, but at least regarding the 135 operations around here, they're reluctant to type the F/O (unless he/she's about to upgrade) because the type makes it easier for the F/O to jump ship and go somewhere else.

aaaaaaaaah...so that's where the "training contract" comes from eh?

-mini

 

[Cardinal]

Is this retro-active? If you have been previously 121 qualified on 2 other airplanes, can you apply for SIC types in those airplanes? Even if you are no longer current?

From my reading of it, no. If you've qual'd within the last 12 months you can go for the certificate without additional training, but if you were a 727 FO 19 years ago you're SOL.

 

[AA717driver]

An SIC type and $2.00 will get you a cup of Starbucks... TC

 

[FN FAL]

An SIC type and $2.00 will get you a cup of Starbucks... TC

That's true hoss, but you and me start a an SIC type rating program and these dorks will be lining up with their mammy and pappy's money like there's no tomorrow!!!

We should be making this money!

 

[Raskal]

Why do I have a feeling a lot of FO's out there are going to be getting an "SIC Type" instead of the real thing all of a sudden...I can see the cheap operators now-"We'll TYPE you in the aircraft!!!".

 

[FN FAL]

Actually if you think about it, the airlines would be stupid to not look at these SIC types as some sort of "work permit".

 

[wmuflyguy]

Is a "PIC Type ride" that much more expensive/difficult to pass than a SIC checkride? If not, would it just make sense to type both persons up front?

Same checkride in respect to the manuevers performed, except a type ride is an FAA checkride(more paperwork) and you must perfrom every task to standards on the first attempt.

An SIC checkride allowed for some retraining and retesting to be done during the checkride (something like...up to 2 manuevers as long as safety of flight wasnt a concern) Example you lose 120 feet on a stall(100 foot loss is standard), so at the end of the checkride the company checkairmen goes back, you practice a stall and get some criticism on it. Then he says now show it to me again, and he evaluates your second attempt, if it is to standards he checks the manuever as passed.

 

[Flying Illini]

An SIC ride is slightly different than a PIC type ride.
An SIC only ride has a few less maneuvers than the PIC ride. BUT, during the training, as an SIC you still recieved training throughout the week on the maneuver, you just aren't required to perform it on the checkride.


They should have never come up with this SIC type thing. Now operators will say they will type you but lo and behold, it's just an SIC type. Now it will be a challenge to get a type in an aircraft unless you are upgrading.

 

[Rick1128]

Same checkride in respect to the manuevers performed, except a type ride is an FAA checkride(more paperwork) and you must perfrom every task to standards on the first attempt.

An SIC checkride allowed for some retraining and retesting to be done during the checkride (something like...up to 2 manuevers as long as safety of flight wasnt a concern) Example you lose 120 feet on a stall(100 foot loss is standard), so at the end of the checkride the company checkairmen goes back, you practice a stall and get some criticism on it. Then he says now show it to me again, and he evaluates your second attempt, if it is to standards he checks the manuever as passed.

Actually, that is not entirely correct. According to the FAA's Order 8400.10 SIC's are not required to perform holding and they only have to perform 1 percession and one non-precesion approach. A single engine approach is not required, though a single engine landing is. Also there is no V1 cut requirement, but the SIC must successfully conduct an engine failure after takeoff.

Next, the 8400 allows a Company Check Airman to retest failed items for either crew position.

Now from your profile it appears that you are flying for a regional airline. You company policies may differ. The 8400 allows the operator to set their own standards as long as they meet or exceed the standards in Order 8400.10.

 

[minitour]

Actually, that is not entirely correct. According to the FAA's Order 8400.10 SIC's are not required to perform holding and they only have to perform 1 percession and one non-precesion approach. A single engine approach is not required, though a single engine landing is. Also there is no V1 cut requirement, but the SIC must successfully conduct an engine failure after takeoff.

Next, the 8400 allows a Company Check Airman to retest failed items for either crew position.

Now from your profile it appears that you are flying for a regional airline. You company policies may differ. The 8400 allows the operator to set their own standards as long as they meet or exceed the standards in Order 8400.10.

wait, wait, wait.....

so the guy in the right seat doesn't have to do a V1 cut or a SE approach...and it's a test til you pass thing? Is that for both seats (how I interpreted what you wrote...haven't read 8400...)?

So...what happens if the CA passes out just before V1 and as the FO calls out V1 the left side dies and the field is right at minimums....do we in the back die?

-mini

 

[Flying Illini]

wait, wait, wait.....

so the guy in the right seat doesn't have to do a V1 cut or a SE approach...and it's a test til you pass thing? Is that for both seats (how I interpreted what you wrote...haven't read 8400...)?

So...what happens if the CA passes out just before V1 and as the FO calls out V1 the left side dies and the field is right at minimums....do we in the back die?

-mini

Not sure how it's done in the airlines but...
at Flightsafety or SimuFlite whether you're there for SIC or PIC, you are trained on and perform ALL maneuvers to standards. Holds, V1 cuts, SE appch to landing, everything...BUT you just aren't tested on them on the final checkride if you are only there for SIC.


On another note...I guess we're all going to have to specify SIC or PIC on our types in the "Aircraft Ratings" section of our profile.

 

[minitour]

Not sure how it's done in the airlines but...
at Flightsafety or SimuFlite whether you're there for SIC or PIC, you are trained on and perform ALL maneuvers to standards. Holds, V1 cuts, SE appch to landing, everything...BUT you just aren't tested on them on the final checkride if you are only there for SIC.

Roger...I think I get it. Probably not, but that makes more sense anywho.

-mini

 

[Flying Illini]

Roger...I think I get it. Probably not, but that makes more sense anywho.

-mini

You're a smart guy, Mini, you got it.
If you were to observe two pilots throughout the course of their sim training, you wouldn't be able to tell who was there for PIC or SIC as they both are doing the same maneuvers to the same standards. If you observe the oral, you wouldn't be able to tell who was there for PIC or SIC as they both go through the oral (together some or all of the time). Only when you are watching them on the checkride, would you be able to tell who was there for PIC and who was there for SIC as the SIC would have a few less tasks to be tested on.

again, that's how it is on the corporate side, not sure about the airline side of it but I'm sure it's similar.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is this. Most airlines allow t/o's from the right seat. What happens when a V1 cut happens when the FO is flying? Shouldn't he be tested on it (not just trained but tested) as he will have to fly the airplane? How about a hold, it's just stupid to not test an SIC on a hold. You fly the airplane and you are expected to enter and fly a hold so shouldn't you be tested on it? Anyhow, it doesn't make sense, the reasoning behind why they don't test SIC's on all the same maneuvers.