Logging SIC in Pilatus?

[prpjt]

§ 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.

135.105 is an exception that must be applied for. If you do not have the exception you must have 2 pilots in a 172 flying pax IFR.

Even if you apply for and recieve the exception in your OPs Spec, if the PIC has less than 100 hours in Make and Model you must have 2 pilots regardless of aircraft certification, if you fly pax IFR.

There's more but I type slow.

I see you were typing faster than me on your edit. Here is the long and short of it.

If you apply for and recieve a 135.105 exception, there is nothing in the regulation that prohibits you from using a qualified SIC in an operation that would otherwise require one.

 

[FlyFlyFly]

there is nothing in the regulation that prohibits you from using a qualified SIC

No, there is no prohibition of using one. There is no requirement for one. I know of no turboprop operator that does not have 135.105 approval in their op specs.

Again, this goes back to logging SIC in a single engine airplane that requires one pilot.

There are only four ways to do it where it is recognized, loggable, SIC time. Under Part 91, K or otherwise, there is no provision for it.

One may log time any way they want. For the application for ratings and certificates, this would not be legal time.

I would also argue that future employers would seriously question the time, as there is no need for a second pilot in this airplane from my perspective.

 

[prpjt]

No, there is no prohibition of using one. There is no requirement for one. I know of no turboprop operator that does not have 135.105 approval in their op specs.

Again, this goes back to logging SIC in a single engine airplane that requires one pilot.

There are only four ways to do it where it is recognized, loggable, SIC time. Under Part 91, K or otherwise, there is no provision for it.

One may log time any way they want. For the application for ratings and certificates, this would not be legal time.

I would also argue that future employers would seriously question the time, as there is no need for a second pilot in this airplane from my perspective.

It really is a shame that in the future there will be a lot of young pilots turned away for having perfectly legitimate time in their books, turned away by folks that don't understand the regs.

The requirement for a second pilot is established by 135.101. That does not go away when you get a 35.105 exception to the rule. If you don't believe me here is an excerpt of a 1992 FAA LEGAL OPINION that may explain it better.


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

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

There are only four ways to do it where it is recognized, loggable, SIC time. Under Part 91, K or otherwise, there is no provision for it.

I believe part 91K requires a PIC and an SIC regardless of the aircraft utilized.

Mr. I.

 

[HMR]

FWIW- I know the CP's at a couple of "dream job" PT.91 Dept's. None of them put much value on SIC time in a Pilatus, King Air, CJ or other "single pilot" aircraft, regardless of the regs.

YMMV.

 

[Lead Sled]

Hiring Interview Dialog...

I hate to say it, but if a pilot showed up at our place looking for work with a bunch of single-engine SIC time in his logbook the interview would probably go a little like this:

ME: What makes you qualified for our position?
HIM: I've got over 2000 hours, including (INSERT ANY AMOUNT) hours of second in command time in a (INSERT ANY SEL AIRCRAFT - PISTON OR TURBINE).
ME: Oh really, well thanks for dropping by. We'll give your resume all of the consideration that it deserves.

[Sound of candidate walking out of the room and the door closing.]

ME: ROTFLMAO as I feed the resume into the paper shredder.

Personally, I would value any single-engine turboprop PIC time - it's not as good as PIC ME turbine or piston time, but good none the less. But SIC time in ANY single-engine airplane? I'm sorry, but it's worthless - perhaps even damaging to your credibility - even if you could log it legally. But hey, that's just me.

'Sled

 

[FlyFlyFly]

It really is a shame that in the future there will be a lot of young pilots turned away for having perfectly legitimate time in their books, turned away by folks that don't understand the regs.

I stand corrected on the legality of logging the time.

However,

FWIW- I know the CP's at a couple of "dream job" PT.91 Dept's. None of them put much value on SIC time in a Pilatus, King Air, CJ or other "single pilot" aircraft, regardless of the regs.

I have to say that the above sentiment is my own as well.

 

[prpjt]

I was just replying to the legal aspect of never being able to log PC12 SIC.

I think we're all in agreement as far as the time being worthless.

But having the time in their logbook is far from shady or illegal. It is what it is. Warm body time.

And now that I read the full thread, I think the OP mentioned it being part 91, which may in fact put it in the shady catagory.

 

[Geronimo4497]

I fly for the Planesense program (operated by Alpha Flying). 91.1031 states that each program manager must designate, among other things, a second in command for each program flight requiring two pilots.

Now, our ops specs calls for a two pilot crew, so we are required to have one on all PROGRAM legs.

As for SIC SE turbine time being useless in an interview, I would tend to agree, but that reg allowed me to log enough SIC time so that I could upgrade to "Captain" and obtain my ATP (SE, of course :crying.

Great company, and really comfy "front office" seats!

EDIT: I could not find it earlier: 91.1049(d) specifies that "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when any program aircraft is flown in program operations with passengers onboard, the crew must consists of at least two qualified pilots employed or contracted by the program manager or the fractional owner."

Whether or not this gives PC12 SIC anymore value is up for (heated?) debate is one story, but in the FAA's eyes, this is not "shady" time when operating under 91K.

-Rant over.

 

[j41driver]

.....

 

[BushwickBill]

I was told by an insurance company today that in order to fly as PIC of a 208B I would need to log 50 hours of SIC time in the airplane. I was thinking to myself what a crock. I wanted to tell the guy there is no such thing as SIC caravan time. The type cert is single pilot. Anyhow the insurance company wanted me to take the flight safety course and then log 50 hours of SIC time in a 208B before I could act as PIC. This whole issue is driven by insurance.