logging right seat in a twin cessna?

[Lil Jon]

could you?/how would you log right seat in a 404 or the like flying part 135? would a regional care at all about it?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Dont log the time until you have the 135 PIC check in the single pilot aircraft.

People will argue about the "insurance company" and "ops specs require 2 pilots" garbage but I wouldn't want to be at the interview when someone asks you about it (with a funny smirk on their face....)

hokey time. good experience, but hokey time...

 

[j41driver]

I've got some SIC time in twin Cessnas (based on ops specs). As long as you have a Pt135 SIC checkride before you start logging it you'll be just fine. None of my interviewers were the least bit upset about it. I agree that it's not the best time but it's not worthless either.

Gulfstream 200 - If the FAA gave me a checkride as SIC in a C340 (they did) and required me to be there if we were flying passengers for hire(they did)...I don't understand why I shouldn't log the time?

 

[340drvr]

Gotta agree with j41driver, 135 op-specs, SIC checkride with an 8410 included, and it's legit to log SIC time. Also, 135 IFR pax ops without an autopilot would require an SIC, but again, there should be training and checkride. Insurance requirements alone don't cut it, and I can't think of any Part 91 ops where right seat in a single pilot plane would be loggable (other than safety pilot for hood-time or dual given). And, beware of some of the right seat "programs" offered by cheesy PFT operators that want you to pay them for the privilege of compensating for no aileron trim!
As for the job interviews, just be prepared to explain the circumstances and details, I suppose there are companies that wouldn't count that time towards their required "minimums," that's their perogrative, but it doesn't change the legitimacy of your log.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

log whatever you want!!

stand at the end of the runways and write everything that lands in your logbook!!

Some may think SIC time in single pilot planes its OK, but others may think its a bit - lame.

Not a chance I would want to take when I handed over my logbook at the interview....and if I was the one interviewing...I would throw that BS time right out and wonder what else you are padding....or better yet, just look at another candidate who actually FLEW an aircraft to get his/her experience..


Just an opinion - take it as that please.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've never seen a really reliable answer to the question about whether a =required= SIC in an ops spec for a single-pilot airplane counts as "more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted."

But, if your ops specs simply =permit= the use of an SIC, you cannot log the time for FAA purposes. If it means anything to potential employers (I'll leave that to those with experience in this), you can certainly create a special column for it, like "company required SIC"

 

[A Squared]

I've got some SIC time in twin Cessnas (based on ops specs).

Uhhh-huh right. Ops specs which require a 2 pilots in a single pilot aircraft.
Soooo, tell me exactly which numbered Operations Specification is that?


For those of you who aren't familiar with Ops specs: Operations specification are specific, numbered authorizations for operations which are issued to certificate holders. THe complete list of operations specifications can be found in the Air Transportation Inspector's Handbook, FAA Order 8400.10 There is no ops spec which requires two pilots in a single pilot aircraft. Anyone who tells you "my ops specs require it" is blowing smoke.

 

[minitour]

So if I've got a Navajo (single pilot a/c) on a 135 ticket and I'm using it for IFR, how does 135.101/135.105 play in there?

Single pilot aircraft, but it's under IFR (required SIC under 135.101) and I didn't apply to get the autopilot used in place of an SIC (135.105)?

Seems kinda contradictory?

-mini

 

[midlifeflyer]

So if I've got a Navajo (single pilot a/c) on a 135 ticket and I'm using it for IFR, how does 135.101/135.105 play in there?

Single pilot aircraft, but it's under IFR (required SIC under 135.101) and I didn't apply to get the autopilot used in place of an SIC (135.105)?

Seems kinda contradictory?

Not contradictory. Remember that there is more than one basis for logging SIC time. Same concept as safety pilot for simulated instrument work - the safety pilot may log SIC (or PIC of course, but we're talking SIC here) in that CE-152, not because a 152 requires more than one pilot, but because "more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is being conducted." [61.51(f)(2)]

Same with 135.101. If you fly IFR with passengers, then ""more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is being conducted." So logging SIC is permissible.

The only interesting kicker in the 135.101/135.105 situation is that it has some regulatory wiggle room. Assuming an aircraft with an autopilot, a 135 certificate holder can decide use an SIC =instead= of the autopilot. In that case, the SIC is "required" and may log it. But I'm sure some would wonder about the operator who forgoes the safety and workload reduction afforded by an autopilot just to allow time building.

 

[minitour]

Not contradictory. Remember that there is more than one basis for logging SIC time. Same concept as safety pilot for simulated instrument work - the safety pilot may log SIC (or PIC of course, but we're talking SIC here) in that CE-152, not because a 152 requires more than one pilot, but because "more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is being conducted." [61.51(f)(2)]

Same with 135.101. If you fly IFR with passengers, then ""more than one pilot is required under ... the regulations under which the flight is being conducted." So logging SIC is permissible.

The only interesting kicker in the 135.101/135.105 situation is that it has some regulatory wiggle room. Assuming an aircraft with an autopilot, a 135 certificate holder can decide use an SIC =instead= of the autopilot. In that case, the SIC is "required" and may log it. But I'm sure some would wonder about the operator who forgoes the safety and workload reduction afforded by an autopilot just to allow time building.

ahhhhhh okay...I gotcha now.

Using your last example, lets say the operator doesn't apply for the use of autopilot in place of an SIC, but they have an autopilot anyway.

You can still use the autopilot, just not to replace the SIC, correct? Or would you have to deactivate and INOP the autopilot?

-mini

 

[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.