logging right seat in a twin cessna?

[j41driver]

Perhaps when the FAA doesn't authorize it and might consider it logbook falsification?

Did you even read any of my post?? The FAA DID authorize it...actually required it. Like I said before, you have to have the proper FAA checkride to log the time as SIC...without the checkride you should not log the time. That's what I've been saying all along.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sorry. With "thread creep" it's sometimes hard to know whether a post is on the "don't log unless there's a regulation that says so" or "don't log legitimate time because some company might not like it" subgroup.

 

[avbug]

The FAA doesn't have to issue an authorization for it. The FAA issues you personally an authorization to act as SIC under 135, either by proxy through a check airman, or directly from your Inspector/POI. 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. Even where such an authorization is granted, one may still fall back to the provision of 14 CFR 135.101:

§ 135.101 Second in command required under IFR.
Except as provided in § 135.105, no person may operate an aircraft carrying passengers under IFR unless there is a second in command in the aircraft.

The exception to this rule is 135.105, which is granted individually to an operator and to each pilot specifically, allowing use of an autopilot in lieu of a SIC. This is stated in the regulation as follows:

§ 135.105 Exception to second in command requirement: Approval for use of autopilot system.
(a) Except as provided in §§ 135.99 and 135.111, unless two pilots are required by this chapter for operations under VFR, a person may operate an aircraft without a second in command, if it is equipped with an operative approved autopilot system and the use of that system is authorized by appropriate operations specifications. No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as a pilot in command under this section of an aircraft operated in a commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter in passenger carrying operations unless that person has at least 100 hours pilot in command flight time in the make and model of aircraft to be flown and has met all other applicable requirements of this part.
(b) The certificate holder may apply for an amendment of its operations specifications to authorize the use of an autopilot system in place of a second in command.
(c) The Administrator issues an amendment to the operations specifications authorizing the use of an autopilot system, in place of a second in command, if -
(1) The autopilot is capable of operating the aircraft controls to maintain flight and maneuver it about the three axes; and
(2) The certificate holder shows, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that operations using the autopilot system can be conducted safely and in compliance with this part.
The amendment contains any conditions or limitations on the use of the autopilot system that the Administrator determines are needed in the interest of safety.

Accordingly, where a SIC is required by the regulation, logging time as SIC is NOT inappropriate. Stipulating otherwise is nothing more than a misunderstanding of the regulation.

One who flies a 421 under 135 as SIC and logs it as such, when 135.101 has authorized it, is doing nothing "shady." This is not questionable, it's not a grey area. It's not difficult to understand. That the aircraft is type certificated for one pilot is not relevant, because the relevant regulation to the operation is 135.101, which requires a second in command.

If said 421 is being operated by a company that has been issued operations specifications permitting use of an autopilot in lieu of a SIC, the company still has the option of using a SIC under authority of 135.101, provided all the training requirements are met. By doing so, the operator is not doing anything questionable, or illegal. The autopilot may still be used, but the option of using the SIC is always there.

Anybody who tells you differently does not understand the regulation. Further, logging SIC time in a 421 or Navajo, or any other similiar aircraft, is not improper. The truth is that most any aircraft, including most large airplanes, can easily be flown single pilot...but that's really quite irrelevant. A SIC is required by regulation...which might be the regulation under which the aircraft has received it's type certificate, or other regulation. In this case, the aircraft is being operated under Part 135, and Part 135 requires a SIC.

It's that simple.

 

[A Squared]

Perhaps when the FAA doesn't authorize it and might consider it logbook falsification?

Ahhh, Mark, there you go, throwing around the "F" word

 

[A Squared]

This is not questionable, it's not a grey area. It's not difficult to understand.

Respectfully, Avbug, it *is * a grey area, and stipulating that it isn't doesn't make it so.

Let's back up a step and examine what is *not* a grey area.

If you're flying passengers IFR under 135 in a baron with no autopilot, an SIC is clearly required, no discussion.

If you are flying cargo IFR under 135 in a baron, the SIC is clearly *not* required, and you are *not* allowwed to log SIC time. To do so is clearly falsification, no matter how many checkrides you hve had. Airnet used to sell thier right seat for this purpose. They don't any more and on thier website you will now find an oblique admission that it really wasn't legal. My money is that it's a result of a little legal action from the FAA, but I digress.

So, we know when it *is* and it *isn't* legal. Let's examine the middle ground.

We're flying passengers in a baron with a functioning autopilot IFR under 135. the operator had authorization to use an autopilot in lieu of an SIC.

Is the SIC required by "the regulations under which the flight is conducted"?

That's the crux. whether you're *authorized* to act as SIC or how many checkrides you've taken is all completely irrelevant.

The only thing that counts is:

Is the SIC required by "the regulations under which the flight is conducted"?

That is the question.

There are 2 views on the matter.

One is that the SIC is still "required" by 135.101, even though the operator is authorized to operate without one, therefore it is legal to log SIC time.

The other view is that the SIC is not reqired by the regulations. This position is best summed up by the question, "can the PIC leglly make the flight if the SIC doesn't show up?" IF the answer is Yes (as it would be in our hypothetical) than the SIC is *not* required, and SIC time may not be logged.

Personally, I find the second much more compelling. It is simple and straightforward, and it doesn't depend on taking to word "required" to mean something other than it's plain, everyday dictionary meaning, and it doesn't involve placing greater emphasis on one regulation and essentially ignoring another.

So, is it a grey area? yes, without a shadow of a doubt. The FAA has never clarified this with a legal interpretation, nor has there been an NTSB decision regarding this issue. Personally I can't imagine a judge ignoring the simple, obvious test of "can the PIC legally make the flight without the SIC" but that's my *opinion* and stranger things have happened. The reality is that it is a grey area and no-one knows for sure which way a judge will decide. But without question, logging SIC time when the PIC may prefectly legally make the flight without you is treading on the very boundary of what is legal.

The fact that one has passed one, or two, or a dozen, 135 SIC checks is completely irrelevant.

 

[A Squared]

Here's an FAA legal opinion. It doesn't directly address the matter, but it does shed light on this issue, and a couple of the irrelevant points which have been brought up. FIrst the irrelevant issues which keep getting thrown around, to wit:

"I have passed a 135 SIC checkride, therefore I can log SIC time"

and

"I have been designated SIC for the flight therefore I can log SIC time"


Here are a few excerpts from the opinon:

"If a pilot designated as SIC is not required by either the aircraft type certificate or the regulations under which the operation is being conducted (e.g. 14 CFR part 135.103), as is the case in the scenario above, then the pilot designated as SIC may not log flight time as SIC. Although the flight time cannot be logged as SIC time, the pilot designated as SIC may be able to log part or all of the flight time as PIC in accordance with section 61.51(e)."

and

"This pilot may be designated as SIC even though the aircraft being flown does not require more than one pilot and the regulations under which the flight is being conducted do not require more than one pilot. Finally, this pilot may log PIC time for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, but may not log any portion of the flight as SIC time."

Very clearly, the FAA makes a distinction between being "designated" and being "required" so, no it does no matter that you have passed a chekride or have been "designated" if the SIC is not requrie, you may not log the time as SIC.


Now, let's take another look at that first quote:

"If a pilot designated as SIC is not required by either the aircraft type certificate or the regulations under which the operation is being conducted (e.g. 14 CFR part 135.103), as is the case in the scenario above, then the pilot designated as SIC may not log flight time as SIC. Although the flight time cannot be logged as SIC time, the pilot designated as SIC may be able to log part or all of the flight time as PIC in accordance with section 61.51(e)."

Notice that 135.103 is given as an example of a regulation which would make the SIC *not* required. Now 135.103 does not exist anymore. It was a regulation which, like 135.105 provided exceptions to the SIC requirement. They were operational conditions, rather than equipment conditions which, like 135.105 made the SIC not required. Clearly, the FAA is of the opinon, that if the flight is operating in accordance with a regulation like 135.103 (or 135.105) the SIC is *not* required, and SIC time may *NOT* be logged. It would seem that hte FAA's Chief Counsel is in agreement that if hte PIC is legal to make the flight alone, then the SIC is not required.

I'm going to revise my earlier statement that it is a grey area. This Legal interpretation makes it a lot less grey. In light of this, it would be very hard to argue (although some inevitibly will) that an SIC may log SIC time in airplane with a functioning autopilot for an operator with a/p in lieu of a SIC authorization.

cont.

 

[A Squared]

THe Chief Counsel Interpretation:

Mr. Jeff Karch
P.O. Box 5791

Lynnwood, WA 98046-5791

Dear Mr. Karch:

This is in response to your letter dated August 26, 1996, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), concerning the logging of pilot-in-command (PIC) time. Additionally, your letter raises questions regarding the qualifications of pilots designated as second in command (SIC) by part 135 (14 CFR part 135) operators.

In your letter you present the following scenario: A pilot, wishing to advance his or her career, pays a part 135 operator to fly in the right pilot seat during part 135 operations. The part 135 operator designates this pilot as second in command (SIC) and allows him or her to manipulate the controls. The aircraft being flown during these operations is not required by type certification to have more than one pilot and the part 135 operation being conducted does not require more than one pilot. You ask whether the above pilot can log PIC time during those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls and whether a pilot may be considered the SIC for the part 135 operation if he or she is paying the part 135 operator to conduct the flight. The answers to these questions are discussed below.

The logging of flight time is governed by section 61.51 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 61.51). That section requires the logging of aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, flight review, or the recent flight experience requirements of 14 CFR part 61. The FAA does not require the logging of other flight time, but it is encouraged.

Logging of SIC flight time is governed by section 61.51(f), which provides, in pertinent part, that a person may log SIC time only for that flight time during which that person acts as SIC of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required by the aircraft’s type certificate or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

If a pilot designated as SIC is not required by either the aircraft type certificate or the regulations under which the operation is being conducted (e.g. 14 CFR part 135.103), as is the case in the scenario above, then the pilot designated as SIC may not log flight time as SIC. Although the flight time cannot be logged as SIC time, the pilot designated as SIC may be able to log part or all of the flight time as PIC in accordance with section 61.51(e).

Section 61.51(e) provides, in pertinent part, that a private or commercial pilot may log PIC time only for that flight time during which that person is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or is acting as the PIC 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.

Accordingly, a pilot designated as SIC may log as PIC time all of the flight time during which he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which that individual is rated. Although the pilot designated as SIC in the scenario you provided in your letter may be properly logging flight time pursuant to section 61.51(e), the more important issue raised in your letter concerns whether or not this individual is properly qualified to be designated as SIC and to manipulate the controls of the aircraft.

Section 135.95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 135.95) provides, in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use the services of any person as an airman unless the person performing those services holds an appropriate and current airman certificate and is qualified, under this chapter, for the operation for which the person is to be used. (Emphasis added)

Section 135.115 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 135.115) governs who may manipulate the controls of an aircraft being operated under part 135. This section states, in pertinent part, that no person may manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during a flight conducted under part 135 unless that person is a pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft. (Emphasis added)

As a result, a part 135 operator may only designate a pilot as SIC and allow that individual to manipulate the controls of the aircraft if that pilot is "qualified" in the aircraft and "employed" by the certificate holder. In order to be "qualified" in the aircraft for the operation for which the person is to be used, a pilot designated as SIC must meet all applicable regulatory requirements including the eligibility requirements under section 135.245 (14 CRF part 135.245) and the initial and recurrent training and testing requirements under section 135.293 (14 CFR part 135.293).

Section 135.245 provides, in part, that a certificate holder may not use any person, nor may any person serve, as SIC of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating.

Section 135.293 provides, in part, that a certificate holder may not use any person, nor may any person serve as a pilot, unless that pilot has passed a written or oral test on the listed subjects in this section as well as pass a competency flight check.

Therefore, a part 135 operator may only designate a pilot as SIC if that pilot is properly "qualified" in accordance with the regulations including sections 135.95 and 135.115 (he or she holds the appropriate certificate and ratings pursuant to section 135.245 and that pilot has received the initial and recurrent training and testing requirements in accordance with section 135.293).

In addition to being properly "qualified," a pilot may only manipulate the controls of an aircraft under section 135.115 if that individual is also "employed" by the part 135 operator. A pilot is considered to be "employed" by a certificate holder under part 135 if the pilot’s services are being "used" by the certificate holder. This is the dictionary definition of the word "employed"; there does not have to be a direct employer to employee compensatory relationship. While there does not have to be a direct employer to employee compensatory relationship, there does have to be an oversight relationship of the individual by the certificate holder for that individual to be considered properly "employed" (used) by the certificate holder.

As part of this oversight relationship, the part 135 operator is required, pursuant to 14 CFR part 135.63(a)(4), to keep certain records of each pilot the certificate holder uses in flight operations (e.g. the pilot’s full name, the pilot’s certificates and ratings, the pilot’s aeronautical experience, the pilot’s duties and assignments, the date and result of each initial and recurrent competency tests and proficiency and route checks, the pilot’s flight time,…). In addition, the part 135 operator is required under 14 CFR parts 135.251 and 135.255 to provide, directly or by contract, drug and alcohol testing for each individual it "uses" in safety-sensitive positions. Flight crewmember positions, of which pilots fall under, are considered to be safety-sensitive positions as defined under part 121, appendices I and J, (14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J), which require drug and alcohol testing.

In summary, based on your scenario, a pilot, wishing to advance his or her career, may pay a part 135 operator to fly in the right pilot seat during part 135 operations provided he or she is qualified, under part 135, for the operation for which the person is to be used. In addition, this pilot may manipulate the controls of the aircraft during part 135 operations provided he or she is employed by the certificate holder. This pilot may be designated as SIC even though the aircraft being flown does not require more than one pilot and the regulations under which the flight is being conducted do not require more than one pilot. Finally, this pilot may log PIC time for those portions of the flight when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, but may not log any portion of the flight as SIC time.

We hope that this satisfactorily answers your questions. This opinion has been coordinated with Flight Standards.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne

Assistant Chief Counsel

Regulations Division

 

[Slippery Wing]

There you go, A Squared! I was just getting ready to post that excerpt.

Here is the link from the FAA.

http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/AFS800/DOCS/pt61FAQ.doc

Search through the document for "{Q&A-393}".

-Slippery Wing

 

[HMR]

A Squared- excellent work!

When I flew King Airs PT135 90% of our ops were single pilot. Occasionally, a pax would request two crew and we'd end up with two PIC's up front. We'd all try to avoid those trips because the guy in the right seat couldn't log the time. We knew guys at other places were logging SIC in BE20's&90's but no matter how many times we read the regs, we couldn't see how it was legit.

As I've said before, I've never regretted leaving my "questionable" SIC time out of my logbook. I have first hand experience of friends doing the carpet dance and trying to explain the regs to "ignorant" CP's and DO's.

Avbug- You have more aviation knowledge in your little finger than I've gained so far in my career. You're also a big advocate of building experience instead of "time". Do you think flying shotgun in a Navajo, 421, BE90, etc. makes for a better pilot?

 

[Lead Sled]

Avbug- You have more aviation knowledge in your little finger than I've gained so far in my career. You're also a big advocate of building experience instead of "time". Do you think flying shotgun in a Navajo, 421, BE90, etc. makes for a better pilot?

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

 

[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.