logging right seat in a twin cessna?

[j41driver]

...If you're carrying passengers under 135, under IFR, you must have an SIC, or an authorization to use an autopilot in lieu of the SIC.

Let's say that you have 2 pilots that will be flying a Part 135 IFR passenger trip in a C421 today. For unknown reasons, the designated PIC did not have an autopilot checkout on his 135 PIC Check. Maybe it was MEL'd the day of the checkride...whatever. The SIC is an employee of the company, is in compliance with all applicable FAR's, and is qualified in the aircraft, etc.

In this case I believe that the SIC can log all the 135 time as SIC because the PIC was not authorized to use the autopilot in lieu of an SIC. Agree?

 

[HMR]

I'm not Avbug, but FWIW, I believe that it's a worthwhile experience even if you can't log the time. You can still observe as the pilot "works the system" and deals with weather, traffic, etc.

'Sled

Agreed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In this case I believe that the SIC can log all the 135 time as SIC because the PIC was not authorized to use the autopilot in lieu of an SIC. Agree?

Assuming the reality of your scenario (or at least treating it as an interesting academic question) I think you are correct. I, for one, continue to think that the border between 135.101 and 135.105 is a bit fuzzy and your scenario shows how.

From a 1992 FAA Legal Opinion:

==============================
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 optionn, 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.
==============================

If the operator can decide not to use the autopilot, there's no reason your scenario - where the PIC is not =qualified= to use the autopilot - would not work as well.

The "hazy" part is whether, in either scenario, in fact using the autopilot removes the authority for the SIC to log it. On a really strict reading, I'd lean toward A Squared's view - I said so myself the first time through. The problem is that this would create an anti-safety incentive for the pilots to forego using a safety feature of the airplane, which is a problem. A problem that Avbug may have had in mind, and one not addressed by the Legal opinion. As an intellectual exercise, I can really see the logging issue going either way. But the unfortunate reality is that the issue would probably come up in the context of a certificate action against someone who did a =bunch= of things bad and, in that case, the decision would probably be in favor of the stricter reading.

Of course, your scenario is a bit different - in the scenario in the Legal opinion, the use or lack of use of the autopilot is a matter of choice. In yours, it's a matter of qualification. That could make a difference as well.

 

[transpac]

I don't see a conflict between the two legal opinions cited. The opinion posted by asquared was in regard to a SIC on an aircraft which did not require a SIC, either by type certificate or by the operating rules. Since the operating rule cited, Part 135, requires a SIC for passenger carrying in IFR conditions it's logical to surmise that the flights in question would have involved either cargo only or passenger carrying in VFR conditions. The second opinion, posted by midlifeflyer, simply makes it clear that the exercise of an autopilot authorization is at the option of the operator. This is always the case in regard to authorizations issued by the FAA.

 

[Lil Jon]

..................................holy crap.........................ahh the day when i can just be pic or in something that always requires sic if i'm in the right seat. i just need some twin time.

thanks again for of the great discussion

 

[JBCaribou]

JBCaribou

Our SIC position is required by the FARs because we assign our flight crews to 10 hour flight days. The SIC may log all flight time as SIC.



Section 61.51: Pilot logbooks



(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.





Section 135.267: Flight time limitations and rest requirements: Unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews.

(a) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember, and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment, for flight time as a member of a one- or two-pilot crew if that crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed—

(1) 500 hours in any calendar quarter.

(2) 800 hours in any two consecutive calendar quarters.

(3) 1,400 hours in any calendar year.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, during any 24 consecutive hours the total flight time of the assigned flight when added to any other commercial flying by that flight crewmember may not exceed—

(1) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or

(2) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots qualified under this part for the operation being conducted.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

all the more reason to fly something like a Learjet or Jetstream. No arguement there, they HAVE to have 2 pilots. Or I suppose a Beech 1900 or CE-501 or Metroliner with the captain having the SIC required limitiation (like me) would be next best..... best of all how bout flying a 747 classic or L1011 or DC10 that way there is the engineer required too.