logging right seat in a twin cessna?

[imacdog]

Gulfstream 200, what about the guys flying right seat in a Beech 1900? Or Metroliners? Those are single pilot airplanes. Is their time "lame" as you put it?

Regarding the passenger 135/inop autopilot, an operator that my company used to subcharter to used single pilot with an autopilot in a Navajo, but one day his autopilot was out of commission and he had a second pilot with him. If it's required by the FARs then it's completely loggable and those who would question so should look at the regs again.

 

[avbug]

Gulfstream200 has an opinion, but it's far from correct or fact.

An aircraft operating IFR under 135 requires a SIC, or an autopilot in lieu of a SIC. Regardless of weather the aircraft is single pilot or not, when operated under 135 IFR, a SIC is required.

An operator may obtain authorization to use an autopilot in lieu of an SIC, however, the operator always retains the right to use an SIC. In order to do so, the operator must have a training program in place for the SIC, and the SIC must have a current checkride and SIC authorization. The authority to use the SIC comes from Part 135, directly. A special authorization is required to use an SIC in lieu of an autopilot, but no special authorizatio is required to use the SIC, because the SIC is required where the autopilot is not used.

If a SIC is used, this does not preclude the use of the autopilot. The autopilot may be used at any time, so long as it meets the requirements for use, even when a SIC is present. It's use does not negate the use of the SIC.

Nothing iligitimate or improper exists with the use of a SIC in an aircraft type certificated for one pilot. Nor does this present any sort of dillema for an interview. It is right and appropriate.

Logging SIC in a Navajo, 421, or King Air 200 for that matter, will cause you no grief at an interview, with the FAA, with insurance, or anybody other than those who do not understand the regulation and it's appropriate application. Further, if you have the opportunity to fly right seat and to obtain both time and experience in the airplane, do so. It's legitimate, and it's good experience...especially if it leads to a job as PIC down the line.

I can't imagine anybody being uppity enough to argue with that.

 

[minitour]

avbug:
Thanks for clearing that up...man was it confusing!

-mini

 

[Yank McCobb]

I agree with what Avbug said. And those who think it is "lame" should review the regs and sit on a few interview boards. The poster who said he would "throw out the BS time" would have absolutely no business interviewing in the first place, since he has just proven how clueless he is about these matters. I would want someone with a little more knowledge and responsibility in the position of making decisions on who my company hires.

If you are operating an aircraft (I am thinking specifically about an SA-227 (which is certified as a single pilot aircraft), under a "regulation" which requires 2 pilots...in this case, Part 135 and company Ops Specs (which are regulatory in nature), and has the required training as per 61.55, then you are perfectly legal to log this time and no one (at least those with half a clue about these things) would question it on an interview or otherwise.

Those that do are only showing their own ignorance, not yours.

 

[HMR]

I'm with G200 on this one. "Hokey" SIC time is questioned. I've sat in interviews and watched pilots squirm as the CP and DO disect their logbooks with raised eyebrows over the "Navajo SIC" time. I'm well aware of PT135 opspecs req'ts. Before I met PIC mins, I flew PT135 right seat in C414's, 425's, 441's and King Airs. Yes, I was properly trained and qual'ed. How much is in my logbook? Zero, zilch, nada.

It's never hindered me in getting a job. I can't say the same thing for my buddies who chose to log SIC in a single pilot A/C.

 

[avbug]

The only folks who would question such flight experience are those without the experience to know better.

A Squared already noted that no OpSpec addresses the issue of a second in command instead of an autopilot. The OpSpec authorization is for an autopilot in lieu of a SIC. Folks keep referring back to OpSpecs as some justification; there isn't any, and it isn't necessary.

14 CFR 135 is all the justification you need; it's spelled out there in unmistakable clarity. Nothing questionable about it. Are you insinuating that an employer might find following the regulation questionable??

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Perhaps if the applicant tried to pass off 135 SIC as smoething more....like PIC......

I logged lots of time like this...

2.0 flight time CE-310.
I flew 1.0 as PIC.
Other pilot flew 1.0 as PIC.
But I logged 2.0 in the multi column.

So hot to get that multi time, I justifed shady logging...

I went back and did a massvie audit. Wish I did it right the first time....

 

[midlifeflyer]

An aircraft operating IFR under 135 requires a SIC, or an autopilot in lieu of a SIC. .

You don't seem to be differentiating between passenger and nonpassenger flights. Is there a regulation other than 135.101?

 

[imacdog]

Cargo-only does not require a second pilot or autopilot. That is how operators are flying 1900s and Metros single pilot with no autopilot.

 

[Immelman]

Following this logic, I a am wondering how 'lame' is it to log time as SIC in a turbojet whose type requires two pilots?... Especially considering that, depending on equiptment, the turbojet may be 'easier' to operate than a 'Ho or Cessna 4xx?

In both cases - the aircraft whose type req's SIC and 135 ops spec that requires SIC, the FAA deems that a SIC is required.. I just don't get how one is more lame than the other.

Note: By 'easier' I am referring to comments made to me by friends with the approrpriate experience; I dont have any multi or jet time.