King Air SIC

[4321]

Question for all of you king air pilots out there, how is it possible for a pilot to sit right seat in a king air and log SIC time? I thought that the king Air was considered a single pilot airplane. I know lots of Charter oprations want SIC's in there King Airs any explanation's. Thanks

 

[mike1mc]

You can log the time as SIC if you have taken a Part 135 checkride (have a current 8410) and have undergone the operator's training program and you are required. For passenger-carrying operations under 135 you are not required to have an SIC unless operating under IFR. Even then you can be authorized to use an approved autopilot in leiu of an SIC. If the aircraft has no autopilot or the captain doesn't have a current authorization, then the SIC is required. In this case the SIC is a required crewmember and must also meet the instrument currency requirements of Part 61. There is discussion on whether or not you can log SIC just because the captain opts not to use the autopilot (and I'd like to hear some responses to this). The regs do not state the captain must USE the autopilot, just that it be approved, available, and authorized for use. Comments?

It seems a LOT of people take advantage of this and just log all the time they are sitting right seat as SIC. Doesn't seem right to me, but that's me. Hope this helps somewhat and didn't make things even more confusing!

 

[ultrarunner]

Operating rule or operating certificate defines the requirements for an SIC.

For example:

Lets take your King Air. And I'm not talking a 300 or 350.... If the PIC is operating under a 'single pilot/autopilot' authorization for the certificate holder, and the airplane meets the equipment requirement (i.e. operating autopilot) then the particular flight being conducted does not require and SIC. With this example, it would be difficult to argue how someone could log SIC time.

If the PIC does not have the "autopilot authorized in liew of second in command" endorsement on his 135 paperwork, then the operator is required to operate the flight in accordance with the 135 SIC requirement. The SIC must meet the 135.293 requirements, and as such can log SIC time.

KA 300's and 350's are a bit different. If I recall, they are type-certificated for two pilots, and to be operated single-pilot the PIC is required a specific SP check in that particular type. However, unless I'm mistaken, the FAA hasn't signed off on operating a Part 25 aircraft 135 with a single pilot, so this would not apply here.

I suspect you're talking about King Air 90's 100's and 200's.

It's been a few years since I've done 135 in King Air's, so If I'm a little fuzzy someone please correct me.

If you have acess to the 135 regs, take a peek in there. It explains it farily well.

 

[ultrarunner]

You can log the time as SIC if you have taken a Part 135 checkride (have a current 8410) and have undergone the operator's training program.

Even in the captain has the Single Pilot/Autopilot Authorization, and the airplane meets the autopilot requirement?

Interesting......

 

[Rick1128]

The explainations I have recieved from FAA Legal is that even if the 135 operator has single pilot authority in its OpSpecs, it it elects to assign a pilot as SIC, that pilot may log that time as SIC. Their opinion is that when the operator assigns an SIC it is no longer a single pilot airplane.

 

[ultrarunner]

Well, I stand corrected. That's a good thing, IMO. Takes out most of the ambiguity for those folks that choose to assing a full-time or part-time 135 qual. SIC in logging that time.

 

[mike1mc]

The explainations I have recieved from FAA Legal is that even if the 135 operator has single pilot authority in its OpSpecs, it it elects to assign a pilot as SIC, that pilot may log that time as SIC. Their opinion is that when the operator assigns an SIC it is no longer a single pilot airplane.

This is how I have read the regs also. §135.105 states that "unless two pilots are required by this chapter for operations under VFR [ten or more passenger seats, or CAT II ops], a person MAY operate an aircraft without a second-in-command, if it is equipped with an operative approved autopilot system......


Doesn't say taht the operator MUST use the autopilot.

 

[Kingairrick]

My POI agrees with the interpretation that Rick1128 gave....Question is: will the interview board?

 

[slickmagneto]

SIC TIME

I know of three pilots who were going for an ATP checkride that had their flight time recalculated by the FAA for having SIC time in a KingAir.

 

[mike1mc]

Re: SIC TIME

I know of three pilots who were going for an ATP checkride that had their flight time recalculated by the FAA for having SIC time in a KingAir.

Were they flying Part 135 or 91? If it was 91, then I understand and agree, 135 is a different story.

 

[501261]

I know of three pilots who were going for an ATP checkride that had their flight time recalculated by the FAA for having SIC time in a KingAir.

I've seen the same thing. Back in 1998 a King Air 135 PIC that I knew was going for his ATP and LR JET Type with our check airman (me). Our POI came along to observe the ride. During "introductions" we found that he had about 1600 hours tt of which, 200 hours BE200 SIC, along with 500 hours Lear SIC (he'd been working for us for about 2 years so that was about right.) Well, the POI did not believe that the BE200 SIC time was legal and that we better not "start" the checkride, because then he would have to record the results (notice of discontinuance, etc.). I disagreed with our POI, but I certainly wasn't going to argue with him over it (we had a very friendly relationship). I simply said lets do this again in a couple of months when our applicant has another 200 hours of Lear SIC and the whole issue becomes mute.

Like most everything in dealing with the FAA it simply depends on your POI's interpretation of the regs.

Though our POI did bring up a good point, since our BE200 did not have a Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), which is required by 135.151 on all multi, turbine, 6+ seat airplanes that require an SIC by certification or REGULATION. We could not legally have an SIC on board, and since we couldn't legally have SIC due to 135.151, he couldn't log SIC.

Remember this was 1998, what goes on with the FAA now might be a different matter.

Regarding the interview board, I have no problem with BE200 SIC time as long as s/he can explain the airplane. If you’re going to log the time you better be able to explain how certain systems work. And apparently COEX's interview board thinks the same way, since the above mentioned LR Jet type applicant never got a chance to take his LR Jet type ride because he got hired by COEX shortly after that and is currently flying as an ERJ-145 Captain. He interviewed shortly (3 days) after the “checkride” with COEX so the BE200 time had to have been in his log book and application when he interviewed with COEX.

 

[slickmagneto]

SIC TIME

I checked with my 3 former co-workers about their flight time.
The problem was that they logged the time without any formal training.
The 91 flights were (SEAT WARMERS).
The 135 flights did not require a SIC. (SEAT WARMERS).
The FAA guy told all 3 if they had DUAL instruction or an 8410, he would accept it. NONE had any documentation.

 

[Kingairrick]

More info

I guess I should have clarified a little. Our King Air SICs have a current 8410 stating "SIC only," we have an approved SIC training program for the King Air, and attend FlightSafety every six months.

POIs have a lot of discretion where this is concerned. Ours likes our program, so he says SIC is ok to log. However, I have seen similar threads to this one where people representing themselves as part of the hiring department at major and regional airlines have made strong statements to the opposite.

The reality is; once you have your ATP, the only thing your logbook is for is to show recency of experience requirements, and for job interviews. In other words, you can put space shuttle time in there as long as you don't try to use it to apply for a certificate.

I have King Air SIC time in my logbook and if asked about it, I will give the above answer. It seems to me that some airlines are going to be ok with it, and some may not.

I say log it and know how to explain the legality.

 

[Rick1128]

Interviews

First of all, you can disagree with your POI. I have done it once or twice. You ask for a letter of Interpirtation from Legal on the issue. A majority of the POIs I have worked with over the years don't have a problem with that. Just make sure you have all you ducks lined up when you do it.

As for Interviews, it has been my experience that they are trying to weed out seat-warmers. You need to product an 8410 or be able to discuss the aircraft in some detail. Yes, there will be some interviewers that will get pushy on the issue. But that seems to be an interview technique designed to test the interviewee under pressure. If you held a job as a Pt91 KA FO and had a LOR that stated that or proof of training from FSI, I would not be too concerned. Just have your answers down pat.

 

[Be200pilot]

There are at least 10 pages of this stuff at www.propilot.com/doc/logging2.html
Its goes over every pt 135 SIC situation you could imagine.
It was not mentioned in this post but if you look on this site, you will find out that a 135 SIC may log PIC as sole manipulator. (even if he/she does not have an ATP)

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

More info:

While U may legally log the above time as PIC, some airlines will not accept it.

Some of them point-blank ask you (in their app, or interview), if U were the one legally responsible for the aircraft-did you sign for the aircraft? If no, it cannot be counted as PIC time. I have some T-37/38 solo time (mutienging trainer jets). Some airlines will not accept this as PIC time, even though I was the only one in the plane, as I was under the supervision of an instructor.

Other airlines don't care.

Be prepared to differentiate PIC-flying from PIC-actual Capt who is responsible for the flight, and you will be OK.

Cliff
GRB