logging multi time

[saviboy]

hi a friend of mine is a first officer on a cessna 402.
I am wondering how can she log her time? and what is it worth?
thanks

 

[labbats]

It's not a first officer in a 402, it's logging dual.

 

[Timebuilder]

Generally, logging questions should be in the FAR forum, above.

If she is receiving instruction, she can log the time as instruction, received, or "dual."

If she is there to assist the pilot as in a job, she needs to determine if her presence is required by the regulations under which the operation is being conducted.

Other than that, it may not be loggable for a specific purpose other than "I rode in an airplane."

 

[cvsfly]

If it is 135 IFR with pax and no autopilot (or without 135.105 approval) an SIC is required. 135.101. Most likely a stripped out, bare-bones 402 with 9 pax seats.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Whats it worth to the airlines?

I would guess it rates slightly higher than logging time in a 757's crapper on a transcon flight.

Airlines will see it as logging time that carries zero responsibility in an aircraft that does not require a second pilot. In other words, they will probably never accept any of that time in consideration torwards a job.

Even Cape Air and Nantucket doesn't use F/O's and they are a scheduled carriers.

I would advise her to go back to flight instructing in a C-150......it is much more useful time from a career standpoint. Dual received in a 402 is about all it's worth.

She may be able to talk some of them into accepting it but only if the FAA says that an F/O is required in the companies ops specs.........then maybe. But I have never seen a people hauler that would rather pay another pilot instead of installing an auto pilot, so I would say she is not a required crewmember as far as the Feds are concerned.

 

[Timebuilder]

It may be that she is being paid less than the upkeep on that old autopilot.

You're right. She needs to be certain that the SIC requirement is in the ops specs. Her real focus needs to be in getting to the other seat.

 

[Bandit60]

It depends on the operation of the flight. If it is 135 and the flight requires 2 pilots then she can log the time. According to one FSDO a few years back, they told me that if the customer requires two pilots for the flight and pays for two pilots then the flight requires two pilots and it can be logged.

Hows that for a confusing answer

And for those who say it is worthless time, they never did that type of flying. In the weather and crap like that. There can be as much to do on a Cessna 402 as there is in a jet. (radios,navigation, etc.)

Good luck and be safe

 

[Timebuilder]

According to one FSDO a few years back, they told me that if the customer requires two pilots for the flight and pays for two pilots then the flight requires two pilots and it can be logged.

I am certain that you are aware that any interpretation of regs on the FSDO level means nothing. Nada. Zip.

Only the office of chief counsel can interpret regulations.

As far as the "value" of the flying is concerened, there are two kinds of "value."

One kind is the value of experience as a pilot, which is undeniable that the time spend in weather decison making, CRM, and familiarity with the airplane makes one a more well-rounded pilot.

The other kind of value is the value of this time in an airline interview, which might be questionable in some interview situations. If you can show that the SIC was indeed required under the ops specs for the carrier, then you can justify this time from a more firm position. Being able to satisfactorily answer any questions about the airplane by the interviewer, who may have flown the aircraft himself in earlier times, and being able to talk about problems, solutions, emergencies, and a host of other topics will add creedence to the hours spent in the right seat. If your answers are vague or incorrect from the get go, it could be the kiss of death.

I have that last part from a guy who serves as a captain on the interview board of a major.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

And for those who say it is worthless time, they never did that type of flying. In the weather and crap like that. There can be as much to do on a Cessna 402 as there is in a jet. (radios,navigation, etc.)

Good luck and be safe

I still disagree, Lots of freight doggie time here, and the right seat in a 402 is just keeping the seat warm, unless you are making the decisions and actually shooting the approaches in the 200 and a half weather, which it sounds like she is not.

 

[Rick1128]

SIC

I just have to jump in here. First the OpSpecs do not really control here. According to FAA Legal, if the company assigns a F/O then the F/O may log the flight time. The fact that the aircraft is passenger carrying or not, or the PIC and aircraft are single pilot/autopilot authorized does not effect this. Single pilot/autopilot authority is just that, an authorization, not a requirement.

On the other hand the F/O must meet the requirements of 14 CFR Part 135, take and pass a checkride under 14 CFR 135.293. So they must know emergency procedures, limitations, systems, etc.

As for making decisions and shooting approaches to minimums. The PIC is the person who will allow or not allow the F/O to make decisions. And many companies have policies in their GOM that set F/O minimums.

The interview process asks these questions to determine if the person was a PFT or seat warmer. As for wrong answers, they do not necessarily shoot you out of the water. Many companies have different speeds and procedures, usually due to different variants of the same aircraft. Just be able to explain why.

 

[cvsfly]

I am certain that you are aware that any interpretation of regs on the FSDO level means nothing. Nada. Zip.............

True. If it is a matter of operational procedure, get it in writing and have the FSDO approve it. Then you are fine. They control the oversight for your certificate.

....If you can show that the SIC was indeed required under the ops specs for the carrier, then you can justify this time from a more firm position.

Under the Basic level of operator, except for the Ops Spec for Autopilot in lieu of SIC I have never seen an Ops Spec refer to or "authorize" an SIC. Our FAA Training Program does. Its in the regs of course. Our Single Piot-in-Command operator status did list authorized PIC and SICs. Which specific (give example) Ops Spec authorizes SICs? Just curious.

 

[Timebuilder]

CVS, if I recall, someone said the Airnet Ops specs give such an authorization.

Whether it is specifically an "op Spec" with a letter code, etc, is a guess, really. It may be just a letter from the administrator that permits the SIC in a single pilot aricraft, or says that one is required. The letter itself would have the force of regulation. I haven't looked at their site in a while, so I'm not certain.

Maybe I'll research this a little.

I just have to jump in here. First the OpSpecs do not really control here. According to FAA Legal, if the company assigns a F/O then the F/O may log the flight time.

It seems reasonable that the FO may log the flight time. Can, however, the FO log the time as SIC, according to the regs? There is a difference between SIC time and flight time, as I am sure you know.

I'm also sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me I recall the reg that authorizes an SIC includes 1) an aircraft where the type certificate requires an SIC, or 2) the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

My point is this: op specs have regulatory force, so a requirement in the op specs WOULD put in force the "regulations under which the flight is being conducted." It also appears to me that a company deciding that they want to assign an SIC, a customer who wants an SIC, or an insurance carrier who wants an SIC is not either (1) or (2) above.

If someone has time to check on Doc's forum, or has more experience or insight than I do (which is a probability, considering the vast experience of some posters here) then set me straight, along with the rest of us. It was my impression from previous discussions like this one that a compny cannot simply "decide" to have an SIC in a single pilot airplane, and have that assignment meet the requirements of the regulations for an SIC.

I wish I could find that darned regs CD...

 

[Timebuilder]

I decided to have another cup of coffee and do a little research.

I went to the Airnet website, which was the best example that I had heard of involving an SIC in a piston twin, an poked around a little.

Under work with us>careers>flight crew>FAQ's>Q: How does an SIC log flight time in a high-performance piston twin?
Note: As of January 1, 2003, the SIC program is temporarily on hold. See the articles in the ALPC magazine dated Nov. '98 and Dec. '99 using the links in this site.

The underlined article link on the site has an explanation of the airnet approach to the SIC position. The salient points are here:

Logging SIC/PIC time: here's how.

In addition to hiring pilot in command (PIC) qualified pilots, AirNet Systems, Inc. offers a program by which pilots serve as first officers (FOs) on light, twin-engine, piston-powered aircraft operating under 14 CFR 135. Candidates for this particular program have less than 1,200 hours total flight time and/or less than certain categories of flight time such as cross country. As noted in 14 CFR 135.243(c), 1,200 hours total flight time, is the minimum total time a pilot must have to be assigned as pilot in command in IFR conditions while operating under 14 CFR 135. In the same regulation, minimums also are established for cross country, night, and instrument flight time. No minimum PIC time is specified.

The minimum grade of pilot certificate for PIC or second in command (SIC) is Commercial. AirNet’s first officer program allows pilots to build their flight time to 1,200 hours and/or to meet the minimums established for the categories mentioned above.

Here is how a pilot utilizes the flight time accrued in AirNet’s program: 14 CFR 135 subparts G and H establish the requirements for testing and training of flight crew members in each type of aircraft to which they are assigned to duty by an air carrier operating under 14 CFR 135. For a flight crew member to be assigned duty, the air carrier and the pilot must comply with all requirements. This, of course, allows the pilot to be on board the aircraft as a flight crew member.

Since the pilot can now legally be a flight crew member, the pilot also can manipulate the aircraft’s flight controls. How a pilot logs the flight time is found in 14 CFR 61.51(e)1. If a pilot assigned as SIC manipulates the flight controls of an aircraft in which that pilot is rated, that pilot may log the time as PIC. This does NOT change who is assigned as pilot in command.

Operations conducted under 14 CFR 135 can have only ONE assigned PIC, regardless of who is manipulating the flight controls. The assigned PIC must be assigned in writing and remains the pilot in command throughout the flight. Therefore, when the SIC manipulates the flight controls, that pilot may log PIC flight time. (emphasis added)

The only time the second in command can log SIC flight time is while that person is serving as second in command on an aircraft requiring more than one pilot by its type certificate, or when required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted. (emphasis added)

Obviously, AirNet’s light piston twins do not require more than one pilot by the type certificates, however, there are conditions under 14 CFR 135 operations which do require two pilots regardless of the aircraft type. Examples include takeoffs below 1,800 RVR, carrying passengers in IFR conditions without an autopilot, and whenever the flight crew is being assigned to more than eight hours of flight time.

In most cases, even these requirements do not apply to operations at AirNet, therefore, the SIC logs pilot in command time while being the sole manipulator of the flight controls and logs total time only, when not manipulating the flight controls. (emphasis added)

This program and method of logging flight time is supported not only by Federal Aviation Regulations, but also by legal interpretations. Keep in mind, however, that as pilots move through their careers and apply for other jobs, certain organizations may require specific conditions of pilot in command time. (emphasis added for our discussion of the pic time being sought by airlines, such as the following paragraph)

One major airline, for example, has very specific instructions on its application that state pilot in command time is ONLY the time for which you were responsible for or in charge of the aircraft, not merely sole manipulator of the flight controls.

In summary, there is a difference between who is assigned as pilot in command and who may be manipulating the flight controls and logging PIC time. At times, both pilots may be logging PIC time because one is the assigned pilot in command (acting PIC as provided in 14 CFR 61.51(e)1(iii)) and the other may be manipulating the flight controls but assigned as second in command.

In most cases at AirNet, an assigned SIC is either logging the time as pilot in command when he or she is the sole manipulator of the flight controls, logging the flight time as total time only when not manipulating the flight controls, or as SIC if required to be there either by the aircraft type certificate or by the regulations under which the operations are conducted.

Pilots who still have questions about how the AirNet second in command program works may contact us at (877) 247-6386.— Clair Morris,Director of Training, AirNet Express


So, that's the whole thing in a nutshell.

 

[Timebuilder]

Another thought

The thread started with the title "logging multi time."

While it is Airnet's contention that you can log "flight time" when not acting as PIC under part 61 (sole manipulator), how do you log it as being "multi time?"

I was taught that time grids should have single and multi time equalling total time, and PIC and SIC time equal total time, minus dual received (prior to being able to act as PIC, as in a student before PPL when receiving instruction).

If this is multi time, what is the pilot responsibility? IF not PIC (as in "not PIC" during the time when the FO is not manipulating the flight controls) or SIC (since no SIC is authorized under the article I cited), then how can there be a difference between sitting in a single engine or a multi engine aircraft as, essentially, a passenger?

The best idea I can come up with is to get the captain to sign off on the time as dual given/received for the time when the FO is not flying.

 

[Rick1128]

SIC

14 CFR Part 135 requires an SIC for operations conducted under IFR. The operator MAY conduct IFR operations Single Pilot IF the aircraft has an operating autopilot and the PIC is approved to conduct single pilot operations. MAY is the operative word here. The operator is NOT required to conduct single pilot operations. According to FAA Legal, if a pilot is assigned to that flight, he is a required crewmember and may log the flight time.

 

[Timebuilder]

Alright, then. We agree that certain conditions allow for an SIC.

If FAA legal allows the time to be logged by the Airnet SIC as "flight time," what flight crewmember position, under the regulations that govern SIC and PIC (discussed above), is filled in by the logging pilot with regard to the crewmember position he served on that flight?

The only answer I can come up with is "none." If it is none, then you are not a required crewmember.

If you meet the specific requirements of this set of circumstances, ie:

there are conditions under 14 CFR 135 operations which do require two pilots regardless of the aircraft type. Examples include takeoffs below 1,800 RVR, carrying passengers in IFR conditions without an autopilot, and whenever the flight crew is being assigned to more than eight hours of flight time.

Then you certainly CAN log that time as a required SIC.

The likelihood of those operations being conducted, even by an on-time carrier like Airnet, is described:

In most cases, even these requirements do not apply to operations at AirNet, therefore, the SIC logs pilot in command time while being the sole manipulator of the flight controls and logs total time only, when not manipulating the flight controls. (emphasis added)

This still leaves us with the question of how this time can be "sensibly" logged when neither type of crew position is being served by the second pilot, ie, when not logging PIC time as sole manipulator?

 

[iflyabeech]

SIC's

We have FO's in our Caravans. They are on every flight and log time as SIC. This is 100% legal SIC time, not PIC though.

 

[Bandit60]

Here is the way i look at it. If the FAA requires a pilot to have a 135 sic check, (have worked for a company which the faa said that if the customer requires a sic then the sic must have a sic checkride) then you must be able to fly second in command at some point.

 

[Timebuilder]

If by "the FAA" you mean the local FSDO in the normal conduct of business regarding a carrier, I would not bet my logbook on it. Remember, ONLY the office of chief counsel can interpret regulations.

While requiring an SIC check may certainly be an act of prudence, the necessity of an SIC is spelled out in the regs.

That necessity does not cover "customer requirements."

If it did, I would have some more time to add to my logbook.

So would a lot of people.

 

[Rick1128]

Timebuilder, I think you may be missing the point. A SIC is a required crewmember on Part 135 passenger flights conducted under IFR. Not IMC. There is a difference. The regs allow the operator to conduct IFR operations without a SIC if the aircraft and PIC are single pilot/autopilot authorized. The operative word in the regs and the OpSpec is MAY. It does not require the operator to conduct single pilot operations. If the operator assigns a SIC to the flight, they become a required crewmember and therefore may log the flight time as appropriate. And this is according to FAA Legal. There have been several legal interpretations issued by FAA Legal stating that. It has no effect on this why the SIC is assigned.

The SIC most meet all the applicable requirements of 14 CFR Part 135, incluidng training and have sucessfully passed a 135.293 checkride in the aircraft.

 

[Timebuilder]

If the operator assigns a SIC to the flight, they become a required crewmember and therefore may log the flight time as appropriate. And this is according to FAA Legal. There have been several legal interpretations issued by FAA Legal stating that. It has no effect on this why the SIC is assigned.

I think I do see what you are saying.


The carrier MAY assing an SIC for the flight.

The carrier MUST train and check the SIC, issuing an 8410.

Therefore, you are saying that this fosters and brings into play an environment of "the regulations under which the flight is conducted." This isn't so in the Airnet program, and we don't know if the person in the original post, asking about the logging of multi time, has been trained, ie:

hi a friend of mine is a first officer on a cessna 402.

The Airnet information makes no mention of the FO logging SIC time, only "flight" time and PIC time when manipulating the controls, even though the company meets the requirements to do so from "FAA legal." Why?

Now I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I wonder how the desire of a carrier to add an SIC to an airplane rises to the level of fostering "the regulations under which the operation is conducted." Is there a link to this legal interpretation, perhaps on DOC's website?

Is a customer's desire to have an SIC on board equal to a carrier "assigning" an SIC? Does that also change the "regulations under which the operation is conducted?"

Can the Airnet FO logging "flight time" during which they are NOT logging SIC time OR PIC time correctly log this as "multi" time?

 

[Bandit60]

Rick 1128

I could not have said it any better. That is exactly what i was trying to point out.

 

[Timebuilder]

Bandit 60

Since you agree with Rick, maybe you can set me straight on this part of his post:

The regs allow the operator to conduct IFR operations without a SIC if the aircraft and PIC are single pilot/autopilot authorized. The operative word in the regs and the OpSpec is MAY. It does not require the operator to conduct single pilot operations. If the operator assigns a SIC to the flight, they become a required crewmember and therefore may log the flight time as appropriate.

Are you agreeing with the idea that the assignment of an SIC therfore creates an environment of "the regulations under which the flight is being conducted?"

My point is that the regulation that covers SIC time makes no mention of an "optional" SIC, according to the desire of the carrier or customer.

While a carrier "MAY" sign an SIC, does that become a required crewmember, or an optional crewmember?

I know that sounds sarcastic. It is. So, if there is a link to a letter from the office of chief counsel that clearly explains how a crewmember who is not otherwise required by regulation becomes "required" due to assignment alone, I am happy to agree with both of you.

Nothing contradictory surprises me when it come to government doubletalk.



Secondly, what does this SIC time appear to be to interviewers? Is it regarded with the same attitude as part 61 PIC time versus Part 1 PIC time, or is it seen as having the same value as a type certification required SIC?

In other words, do airlines regard this SIC time "differently?"

 

[Bandit60]

As is stated before, I am not talking about and optional sic. Under 135 operations, if the person who hires the flight wants two pilots for that flight, the second person must have a 8310 checkride in order to even touch the radios.

Remember 135 refers to "aircraft for hire" Therefore the operation of that flight requires a second in command if the person doing the hiring needs to have a second pilot.

As far as interview and what it means. I dont care about interview, i care about a pilot getting good experience and flying like that is great experience for that pilot. You, as a CFI log time while your not "at the controls" but the things you learn as a CFI are non replaceable. You cant tell me that you dont learn from your students.

I'm not telling you that people should log all type of silly time.
but, if the time is legit then why not log it.

 

[Timebuilder]

I think we agree on many points, particularly what you can learn as a CFI.

I do wonder though, since most of the pilots who would be logging this time are doing so with at least an intent of having a professional career, I'm foced to wonder if someone who logs time under this arrangement is doing themselves a disservice at interview time.

I'm wondering if, when only "flight time" can be logged by, say for instance, an Airnet SIC, if not manipulating the flight controls, as mentioned in the Airnet article above, what is the impact when a captain on a hiring board sees "multi time" logged without either a PIC or an SIC position being served?

I'm going to have to search around and see if I can find a clear set of guidelines for determining "the regulations under which the flight is being conducted."

 

[iflyabeech]

give it a rest

Yes you can log it. No it doesn't hurt you. Yes it is flight time. Yes we are all tired of your useless and argumentative posts on this subject. Give it a rest! Mind your own business!

 

[Timebuilder]

Tell ya what. I'll post.

You ignore.

Deal?

 

[Timebuilder]

I found this on Doc's website.

Another example of a situation in which an SIC is required is illustrated in the many posts on the Propilot BBS concerning various air cargo companies which employ SICs to fly small airplanes (Beechcraft Barons, for example).


Although the SIC may not be required by 135.101, as passenger-carrying operations are not being conducted, there are other kinds of operations which may impose a requirement to use an SIC.


If the operation requires two pilots under FAR 135.267 because the flight time will exceed 8 hours, then the SIC is required and he/she may log all flight time. The time may be logged as SIC when not flying. It may be logged as PIC (or SIC, if desired) when the SIC is the sole manipulator of the flight controls. See FAR 61.51 (e)(1) and (f)(2).

Similarly, when lower-than-Category I takeoffs are accomplished (less than 1800 RVR) under FAR 135, Operations Specifications (OpSpec) paragraph C57(e) requires the SIC to be aboard. OpSpecs carry the same weight as the FAR, since compliance with them is mandatory under FAR 119.5(g). Again, the SIC may log SIC time when not flying; and may log PIC time (or SIC, as desired) when the SIC is the sole manipulator of the flight controls.

Doc's site does not address the SIC time when an SIC is assigned outside of the above mentioned requirements. Doc does give a legal interpretation from the FAA regarding SIC's.

In part:

Approval for single pilot operations with use of an operative approved autopilot system under FAR 135.105 gives an operator an additional option in the conduct of operations. It does not mandate that all future flights be conducted in that manner. The operator can elect to fly trips with two pilots, as is otherwise required for flight in IFR conditions under FAR 135.101, using the second in command instead of the autopilot.

Your second question asks if, under the circumstances given above, the SIC can log time as SIC when the designated pilot in command is flying the aircraft. The answer is yes, as long as the certificate holder is using the SIC as a crewmember instead of exercising the autopilot authorization. In other words, the certificate holder elects not to conduct an IFR flight using the single pilot with a functioning autopilot option, but rather conducts an IFR flight using two qualified pilots. The two pilots are then "required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted", FAR 61.51(c)(3), and the assumption is that the second pilot (SIC) will function as a required crewmember, and SIC time may validly be logged. However, if for some reason another qualified pilot "rides along" and does not function as a crewmember, then second in command time may not be validly logged.

This interpretation has been prepared by Arthur E. Jacobson, Staff Attorney, Operations Law Branch, Regulations and Enforcement Division; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. It has been coordinated with the Manager, Air Transportation Division, and the Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

Sincerely,


Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

This is all I could find on the subject. The letter makes no reference to logging "flight time" when not able to log PIC time as sole manipulator, or SIC time when not under the IFR provisions.

 

[joelo88]

i had to put in for this one because i myself am in the middle of this whole situation and have been for the past two years. i'm at a SP 135 op and i'm basically a living life insurance policy for some of our customers. i'm not 293'd (cheap bastards) so the only time i log is PIC (or dual in the B350) when no pax are onboard (part 91) and i fly the ship from the left or right seat (whatever i feel like). yes it really does suck flying in a plane for 6 hrs and only logging 3 especially when you're doing a ton of work and you have more time in type than the new captain who just started flying 135 last week! At least i get paid.

no matter how you look at it, it's great experience. especially in the northeast where the weather often sucks and the airports can be very busy(ACK,MVY,TEB, BOS,HPN, ect). it's all about what you put into it. if you just go along for the ride, than you're not going to get much out of this type of thing, but if you take advantage of the situation and hand fly till you're ready to die (there's no excuse if no pax onboard), do flight planning, think like a capt., it will put you way ahead of the game.

 

[Timebuilder]

That's how I view all of the Navajo time that I could not log. Hard work, great experience, a little extra money.

ONLY the PIC time where I flew the plane (no pax, part 91) is in my logbook.

I always tried to make the most of all of my experience.