Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Logging Multi time

  • Thread starter Thread starter BoDEAN
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 4

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
The letter:

March 26, 1992
Mr. Michael G. Tarsa

Dear Mr. Tarsa:

Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1991, in which you ask questions about logging pilot in command (PIC) and second in command (SIC) time when operating under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize that staff shortages, regulatory matters, and interpretation requests received prior to yours prevented us from answering your questions sooner.

Your letter presents the following scenario: a Part 135 certificate holder conducts operations in multiengine airplanes under instrument flight rules (IFR). The operator has approval to conduct operations without an SIC using an approved autopilot under the provisions of FAR 135.105. The operator has assigned a fully qualified pilot, who has had a Part 135 competency check, to act as SIC in an aircraft that does not require two pilots under its type certification. Although FAR 135.101 requires an SIC for Part 135 operations in IFR conditions, the autopilot approval is an exception to that requirement.

You correctly state that while the SIC is flying the airplane, he can log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency checks required for Part 135 operations, at least as SIC.

You then ask two questions. The first asks whether the pilot designated as PIC by the employer, as required by FAR 135.109, can log PIC time while the SIC is actually flying the airplane. The answer is yes.

FAR 1.1 defines pilot in command:

(1) Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.

FAR 91.3 describes the pilot in command:

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. Part 61 deals with logging flight time, and it is important to note that section 61.51, Pilot logbooks, only regulates the recording of:

(a) The aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time:

(2) Pilot in command flight time. (i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot in command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

(ii) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot in command time all of the flight time during which he acts as pilot in command.

(iii) (omitted).

(3) Second in command flight time. A pilot may log as second in command time all flight time during which he acts as second in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot in command flight time that are pertinent to your question. The first is as the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 135.109, that person is pilot in command for the entire flight, no matter who is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the aircraft.

The second way to log PIC flight time that is pertinent to your question is to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, as you mention in your letter. Thus, a multiengine airplane flown under Part 135 by two pilots can have both pilots logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated second in command is manipulating the controls.

We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight time for purposes of FAR 61.51, where you are keeping a record to show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the requirements for a higher rating. Your question does not say if the second pilot in your example is fully qualified as a PIC, or only as an SIC. This is important, because even though an SIC can log PIC time, that pilot has not qualified to serve as a PIC under Part 135.

An example of this difference is FAR 135.225(d), which raises IFR landing minimums for pilots in command of turbine powered airplanes flown under Part 135 who have not served at least 100 hours as PIC in that type of airplane. Served and logged are not the same in this context, and no matter how the SIC logs his time, he has not served as a PIC until he has completed the training and check rides necessary for certification as a Part 135 PIC.

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
 
avbug,

Let's take a King Air 300 & 350 for example, common type. The aircraft is type certificated for single pilot operations and does not require a sic as long as the guy in the left seat has the single pilot type rating and has met the numerous 135 regulations as previously discussed. This particular 135 operation's ops specs do not require a sic to be onboard the aircraft at any time although they provide a fully trained and checked out sic to meet insurance reqt's and to make passengers feel that much more comfortable. The inspectors that I have spoken to at the numerous different fsdo's have said time and time again that as long as the aircraft does not require a sic to be onboard, as long as the ops specs do not require a sic to be there, as long as the regulations do not require the sic to be there then you cannot log the time as sic time no matter the fact that you are "sic qualified". If the ops specs were to state that a sic was required to be onboard then "yes" you would legally be able to log the flight time as sic, not the case here in my opinion since the "insurance reqt's" cannot over-ride the ops specs, regulations, or aircraft's certification.

I have met numerous pilots who were part 135 "sic qualified" on a King Air C90B in which the company did this for no other reason that to make pax feel more comfortable since instead of one qualified pilot up front now they now have two. Can they "legally" log this as sic time? I tend to say no since they are not "required" to be onboard the aircraft per the ops specs, regulations, aircraft reqt's.

So how would they log the time then, that was the only point that I was trying to make. Does "dual" mean anything at this point? Maybe and maybe not but I personally would not start logging sic time in these types of aircraft since you are probably setting yourself up for some trouble at some point down the line. Most on interview boards are going to know this time would be "questionable" at best, if even that. Express Jet recently excused two applicants during the interview process in Houston due to this very reason. Apparently the applicants were "qualified" as sic on their company's aircraft but they were legally not required to be there nor were they needed per that particular company's ops specs.


If your ops specs, aircraft, regulation require you to be onboard as a sic and you are qualified then log the time as sic, simple. I just think people do this in many cases where they are going to set themselves up for trouble down the line.




(3) Second in command flight time. A pilot may log as second in command time all flight time during which he acts as second in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.


So... He/she is unable to log the time as sic if it is not required by the aircraft's type certification, ops specs, regulation. Once again the company in particular I mentioned has pilots logging time in a King Air as SIC. How does this "qualified" pilot then log the flight time? I think "dual" is going to be the only option left and they can log the 91 legs as pic time if they are flying those legs.







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.


Why would a company not exercise this option? Most of the 135 operators that I have come in contact with want this "flexibility" to be able to fly the aircraft single pilot. This is more economical as well since it avoids having to pay a second pilot.



3 5 0

av- when did Markette give you your Sabre type? (just curious)
 
Why would a company not exercise this option? Most of the 135 operators that I have come in contact with want this "flexibility" to be able to fly the aircraft single pilot. This is more economical as well since it avoids having to pay a second pilot.

I think for most, it is a matter of simple economics, in the face of rising insurance costs. If you can place a second person in the cockpit, and not have to make them a required crewmember, not have to pay them as much as the PIC, not have to either train them yourself or send them to school, and simply have a fuctioning autopilot to cover the crew requirement, then you have the best of both worlds. You pay a few dollars to someone to placate your insurance and your passengers, and you don't have to make them an integral part of your operation.

It's a shame those guys were dismissed from the interview. It pays to know how a carrier feels about SIC programs and logging before you get that far.
 
The inspectors that I have spoken to at the numerous different fsdo's have said time and time again that as long as the aircraft does not require a sic to be onboard, as long as the ops specs do not require a sic to be there, as long as the regulations do not require the sic to be there then you cannot log the time as sic time no matter the fact that you are "sic qualified".

Well there's your problem...you are seeking information at the FSDO level. You should know by now that it's frequently wrong, conflicted, and is most certainly not authoritative. You have just been given an interpretation by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel, however, which clarified it for you, and IS authoritative.

You would rather go on heresay by asking the lowest rungs of the Administration, rather than going to the source for making such a determination. Why is that? Read the letter again. I highlighted and italicised it for you.

If the ops specs were to state that a sic was required to be onboard then "yes" you would legally be able to log the flight time as sic, not the case here in my opinion since the "insurance reqt's" cannot over-ride the ops specs, regulations, or aircraft's certification.

Again, READ THE LETTER! It's right there. If the operation is authorized single pilot with autopilot by the Opspec, then that operation is also authorized the use of two pilots...the operation may use a SIC in lieu of an autopilot. Read the letter.

In part, it states:

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.

I have met numerous pilots who were part 135 "sic qualified" on a King Air C90B in which the company did this for no other reason that to make pax feel more comfortable since instead of one qualified pilot up front now they now have two. Can they "legally" log this as sic time? I tend to say no since they are not "required" to be onboard the aircraft per the ops specs, regulations, aircraft reqt's.

But you would be wrong in that bet, as already established. The SIC is required by regulation, period. That the PIC is authorized to use an autopilot in lieu of a SIC is not relevant; he's using the SIC in lieu of the autopilot. Again, read the letter.

Express Jet recently excused two applicants during the interview process in Houston due to this very reason.

They're better off. Why on earth would they want to pucker up their careers or pollute their lives by working for a company like that anyway?

So... He/she is unable to log the time as sic if it is not required by the aircraft's type certification, ops specs, regulation. Once again the company in particular I mentioned has pilots logging time in a King Air as SIC. How does this "qualified" pilot then log the flight time? I think "dual" is going to be the only option left and they can log the 91 legs as pic time if they are flying those legs.

Negative. Asked and answered, repeatedly.

Why would a company not exercise this option? Most of the 135 operators that I have come in contact with want this "flexibility" to be able to fly the aircraft single pilot. This is more economical as well since it avoids having to pay a second pilot.

Obviously not. You've cited examples of operators who are doing just the opposite...using a SIC when they don't need to. Looks to me as though you've answered your own question.
 
Since the 340 is a pressurized airplane with a service ceiling greater than 25,000 feet you would need a high altitude endorsement in order to log PIC. Do you have a high altitude endorsement?
 
Don't need the endorsement to LOG PIC just to ACT as PIC.

From 61.31
(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground training.
 
They're better off. Why on earth would they want to pucker up their careers or pollute their lives by working for a company like that anyway?


Pretty bold statement there avbug, I am starting to think that you and Markette may be the same person.


3 5 0
 
I do not know what you mean. I have quoted regulation here, and dealt with a regulatory issue.

The single pronunciation of opinion dealt with the use of a firm for which I have no respect. You make an assumption about my own identity which is quite incorrect. If you refer to the same gentleman who provides training for various type aircraft to meet insurance requirements, I can assure you I'm not him. I don't know him, but have flown with him. I do not personally care for his training, nor for his offering.

He visited a facility where I worked, and I received the initial training there from him. He performed a barrel roll in the corporate jet during that training flight. He was afraid of mountains, and had a severe white-collar attitude about flying an airplane. Different world from mine; he didn't earn my respect. Others, primarily those who are looking for bargain basement training, seem quite pleased with his services. Strictly a matter of personal opinion. Never the less, I am not him.

As for bold statements, have you ever known me to make anything less?

If you're referring to someone else, I have no knowledge of that person.
 
avbug,

Thanks for the reply, was just curious.. Bob had given me a captain ride awhile back. It is the same guy that you are referring to. I think he is out of Indiana somewhere. A few stories about engine failures in the Sabre were a tad "interesting" to say the least.

3 5 0
 
The only story I ever heard from him was waffling on and on about a steering hardover in a Sabre 60. The steering system and electronics is unnecessarily complicated with a trouble-prone potentiometer that requires very frequent testing...hardovers aren't that uncommon historically in the airplane. However, he seemed very fixed on that one event, as though it were a lifechanging moment. I recall that he seemed afraid of mountains and terrain, and he lost my attention completely when he told me he considered anything below 15,000 to be "low level."

He was very fond of cutting short a systems description by praying the mantra of pure fffg magic. Don't need to know that, mister. Nothing you can do about it in flight. No, that? That's not important either. It's all magic. All you need to know is the anunciator panel. Don't need to know systems. Can't do anything about them anyway. Why would you want to know that, anyway? Just be careful of that steering. It's a killer. Didn't leave me with any warm fuzzies. I later went to work for a company that was intent on using his services, and worked hard to successfully disuade them and pick a different vendor.
 
interesting!!!


I guess he is a check airman for like 14 different operators. Interesting to so say the least....


3 5 0
 
Last edited:
He gets used because he's cheap. He is the cheap alternative to doing it up right and sending someone to simuflite or flight safety. He's the economy answer for departments that don't want to spend a lot for their training.

If I were to choose between using his services and spending less, or sending a new hire to simuflite or flight safety for more dollars, I'd spend the extra money. It's worth it, hands-down.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom