Logging SIC time......

[JohnnyP]

I dont have this position yet. I just know of an operation around where I live that owns a few bizjets, one of them a CJ2. And once and a while theyll let a lower time guy like myself come ride right seat and end up getting (and logging from what ive heard from the person I have been speaking with) a few hundred hours of jet time. In my talks I have not heard any mention of sending a person off to school, so there are still some details I would have to find out. I was just curious as to how this time could be logged legally if the person isnt rated for the aircraft, aircraft doesnt require a second in command, and the insurance states two people are required in the cockpit. But from what i understand insurance doesnt really come into play when it comes to logging flight time.

 

[psysicx]

How do fractionals log king air of cj time since they are part 91.

 

[dolphinjazz]

Why not 2 logbooks?

I think there's a big distinction here and this gets into the spirit of the law. It says you may not make any *INTENTIONAL* false entry. What you are saying is including unintentional false entries. The point of this section about logbooks is to stop someone from intentionally falsifying his logbook by filling it with flightime he did not fly, which is a criminal act. If you log SIC because you were under the impression you could (from a fellow pilot, the FSDO, etc.) but really can't, I don't believe falls under an intentional false entry.

Something I've wondered about in passing... not advocating this... just asking:

Reading this thread and a couple of others in this forum, it occurs to me that if one perceived threat "in general" is that an overzealous inspector will find something to nitpick in your logbook... and cause you a LOT of grief... well, help me out here... why not have *two* logbooks.

Now, don't go nuts on me (yet)... let's presume that a pilot already has all the ratings and certificates he/she wants... is not looking to present a fat logbook to the FAA for consideration for any more ratings (already been there, done that).... well, then log *only* that time that shows currency... that's all that is needed as per the regulations, right? Fly 1000 hours per year, but log only the 10 hours that show (iron-clad) your currency. Pick and choose those "currency flights" wisely. Give the ramp check inspector the skinny book with only two pages in it... and let him go eat cake.

Save the second logbook for interviews... put everything you want in there. (Don't lie) I'm saying log everything you can log legally.

Sleep well at night... keep your "FAA Logbook" with you to prove up currency. And there will be no threat of getting beat up for something inadvertent... or for a minor mistake... or for a misinterpretation. Just short cut all that crap!!

Please keep the flame throwers on low setting... only asking a question here. In fact, it wasn't me asking... I channeled it!!

Is the idea completely nuts??

 

[A Squared]

I'm really curious to know why this guy was investigated in the first place. Was it a mishap? .

I don't know, I wasn't able to glean that bit of information from the docket.

Once you have an investigation , everything is under scrutiny and all of a sudden things that seem trivial become magnified under the microscope.

Yeah, exactly. Whatever they were sniffing around for initially might pan out to be nothing, but in the meantime they've found some completely unrelated discrepancies to go after.

DOlphinjazz,

Yeah, you can do that I know of at least 2 pilots who do. They start a logbook with a BFR, log only the flights they need to show currency, throw the book away and start another when the next flight review is due.

Neither will ever pursue flying as a career. They don't care about time logged, and they feel no need to keep a record that might someday bite them. I'm not sure how you show that you've had those one time endorsemsnts Hp, complex retract, and such. I suppose that you could have the flight instructor re-endorse you at every flight review.

In the situation you describe, where the pilot is developing a career in aviation with an eye toward flying for an airline, the FAA is gonna *know* that there's another logbook. Career minded pilots (other than those who have the job they expect to retire from) don't not log time. What can hte FAA do about it? I don't know, but it might make them look extra hard for something to enforce.

 

[Erlanger]

If your company has an approved FAA SIC program in place then it is legal SIC time. It would be just like any regional or major airlines' SIC program with some ground time and either sim or it can be just going up in the airplane for a certain amount of time and than a checkride. If your company doesn't have something like this in place than it ain't SIC time and don't be logging it!

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>>>>>>If your company has an approved FAA SIC program in place then it is legal SIC time.

Uhhh, no, another aviation urban myth. In order to log SIC the SIC must be *required* by the aircraft type certificate or regulations. It's that simple.

It doesn't matter what sort of program the company has. There's always someone claiming that there's some "letter" from some FSDO which makes it all ok. Whenever someone says this, my response is, let's see the letter. No-one ever shows the letter. I've seen exactly one letter, and all that it stated was that the SIC program in question was in compliance with the appropriate regulations. Nothing even hinted that it allowed SIC logging when the SIC was not required.

Airnet used to claim that you could log SIC in thier airplanes and they sold the oppotunity to so to low time pilots. You go to thier website now and they concede that you actually cannot log SIC time legally. why the change? Perhaps because the FAA brought it to their attention that it was not legal?

Here's an FAA legal counsel interpretation which makes it pretty clear that a non-required SIC may *NOT* log SIC time.

>>>>It would be just like any regional or major airlines' SIC program

No, it's nothing like that, becaure generally the airlines use aircraft in which an SIC is required by type certificate, and even wheh it's not, the SIC is required by Part 121.


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

 

[JungleJetFO]

You know why this is always an issue? No one understands it. It defies common sense. I have talked to the FSDO and get different answers. Federal examiners during check rides will readily accept whatever flight time you put in front of them and pilots take that as a voice of approval. How come they aren't the experts? Do they want your money so bad they sign you off and endorse an inaccurate logbook? And Part 135 companies know they can attract pilots to fly for them under the guise of getting SIC time even though it doesn't meet the requirements. I would bet thousands of pilots have falsified flight time and don't even know it. But as long as the FAA doesn't check it, you just go along your merry way. And then some poor bastard scrapes his Cessna into another plane and you flying career goes down the toilet since the FAA finally reviews your logbook.
Doesn't this all come down to the definition of aeronautical experience? Couldn't we all agree that sitting in the right seat of an airplane that is required for insurance reasons to have two pilots be considered aeronautical experience? Either the FAA needs to loosen up what is considered SIC or create another column for this type of flight time. It should be worth something, especially to aspiring airline pilots since this is exactly the type of experience that will make you a better airline pilot. All that mushy CRM stuff is developed when you fly as a multi-piloted crew. It doesn't have to be a heavy, passenger jet for you to develop those skills.

 

[A Squared]

You know why this is always an issue? No one understands it. It defies common sense.

No, many people understand this, and it does not defy common sense.

If a SIC is not required, you can't log SIC time. It's that simple and it makes perfect sense. There is a little tiny grey area regarding 135 pax operations under IFR with an autopilot. Other than that, it is crystal clear and is a very logical, common sense place to draw the log/no log line.

A great deal of the problem comes, not because it is difficult to understand the answer, (it's not) but because some want a different answer, so they try very hard to convince themselves that the plain, common sense, easy to understand answer really means something else.

I have talked to the FSDO and get different answers.

That's another part of the problem, officials who take it upon themselves to "interpret" the regulation to mean something different than what the words say. Be aware that "the FSDO" has no authority to interpretat the regulations and that an individual inspector's opinion has absolutely no legal standing.

And Part 135 companies know they can attract pilots to fly for them under the guise of getting SIC time even though it doesn't meet the requirements.

Yep, that's another part of the problem, unethical operators who perpetuate the myth because they can make money from it.

I would bet thousands of pilots have falsified flight time and don't even know it.

Yes, and that is unfortunate. The antidote is Know the rules yourself. Don't let someone else tell you that they mean somthing other than thier plain english meaning, especially if they are trying to sell you something.

Doesn't this all come down to the definition of aeronautical experience? Couldn't we all agree that sitting in the right seat of an airplane that is required for insurance reasons to have two pilots be considered aeronautical experience?

"aeronautical experience" comes in varying degrees: It goes all the way from commanding the space shuttle to sitting in 34b on a 737 or watching an airplane fly over your house. It's all "aeronautical experience" and you could claim that someting is learned in each case. On nice days, I've been known to go down to the local seaplane base and watch the floatplanes land, it's mostly just an excuse to sit around in the sun and relax, but I do carefully watch the various techniques, think about them and compare them to my own ...... so should I log this time? I'm learning something. Obviously, you have to draw the line *somewhere* ... So, the FAA has chosen to draw it at the "required pilot" point. You may not like that they've chosen this point, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but that doesn't mean that it isn't logical and easily understood.

 

[Erlanger]

Near the end of the counsels letter, it states:

"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."

 

[A Squared]

Near the end of the counsels letter, it states:

"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."

Yeah, you can be *designated* SIC, you can fly as SIC, but the interpretation repeats several times that you may not log the time as SIC.