Logging SIC time......

[English]

JohnnyP,


Are you being asked to fly right seat part 91 or 135? Does the PIC have a CE525 or CE525s type rating? (Big difference). If he/she has a CE525 type rating, then you are a required crew member (if part 91), and you can log the time legally. If he/she has a CE525s type rating, there are still some circumstances where you can be a legal SIC. In all cases, for part 135 flights, you'd need to do a 135 checkride.

I can help you better with more info.

 

[nosehair]

Two logbooks: Simple answer. Don't log this time in your official logbook, but keep a seperate logbook to log this aeronautical experience. It is valuable experience, and *may* make a difference in an interview. At least it will show you know the regulations concerning logbooks.

Write a statement in the front of the logbook that says somthing like "Unofficial aeronautical experience only. Not to be used for the purpose of obtaining FAA Certificates or ratings, or to document recency of experience."

 

[JohnnyP]

Thanks for all the info people.

English, I havent been asked to do anything yet, I just know of the operation and if i dont get the current job im interviewing for next week then my contact at this place said he would take me down to meet everyone, etc. I havent talked to anyone flying there, I was just curious as to how the right seaters are logging this time they are getting there. I would venture to say that the left seaters do have type ratings in the aircraft. And you know what I dont even know if it is a 91 or 135 operation, these are obviously details I am interested in but havent had a chance to find out without talking to someone there. I wish I had more info, would make it easier to find out all the details.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

JohnnyP,


Are you being asked to fly right seat part 91 or 135? Does the PIC have a CE525 or CE525s type rating? (Big difference). If he/she has a CE525 type rating, then you are a required crew member (if part 91), and you can log the time legally. If he/she has a CE525s type rating, there are still some circumstances where you can be a legal SIC. In all cases, for part 135 flights, you'd need to do a 135 checkride.

I can help you better with more info.

English is correct, The main question involves which type rating the PIC is flying with. 525 only, requires a SIC, 525s is the single pilot version. Having said that though I doubt that many would question SIC in a Citation since most require a second pilot in many cases. The 550 series can be flown SP with the PIC holding an SP waiver, However the airplane its self requires two pilots. So even though I hold an SP waiver, anybody flying with me can log SIC provided that they have had the training outlined in part 61 of the FAR's since the waiver is mine and not the airplanes. The two differences would be the 501 sp and the 550 sp(I think designated the 551). In the case of the 550 sp (A Citation II with lowered gross weight) the airplane its self is documented as being single pilot.

The 525 is a little different, since it can be either single or two pilot depending on what type you hold, but as long as you have had the required training and have that training documented I wouldn't bust somebodys balls over it.

Of course that is just my opinion, There are a lot of CP's out there that might get all technical over which type the PIC held just to make your life miserable.

 

[viking737]

Not necessarily interested in logging any time, but what are the requirements under part 61 to fly SIC in a 2 pilot jet?

I have been flying part 121 for the last few years, but every now and
then someone is looking for a right seat guy in a corporate jet.
I know some training would be required, just don't have part 61 handy.
Anybody have the right answer?

 

[bobbysamd]

SIC requirements

Not necessarily interested in logging any time, but what are the requirements under part 61 to fly SIC in a 2 pilot jet?

I have been flying part 121 for the last few years, but every now and
then someone is looking for a right seat guy in a corporate jet.
I know some training would be required, just don't have part 61 handy.
Anybody have the right answer?

14 CFR 61.55 will tell you everything you need to know.

 

[Lead Sled]

I know some training would be required, just don't have part 61 handy. Anybody have the right answer?

Part 61 sets forth the minimum that you need; the right answer is to have a talk with their insurance agent - regardless of what the FARs say, it's the insurance carrier that sets the rules.

Lead Sled

 

[Flying Illini]

regardless of what the FARs say, it's the insurance carrier that sets the rules.

Lead Sled

Exactly... If the insurance says you need two pilots even though the aircraft isn't certificated as such, that airplane does NOT fly unless that right seat is filled. Seems wrong to prevent someone required for the flight to log the flight time. It seems open and shut to me: BE20 (king air 200) flies with two pilots, sits with one pilot. I think this reg needs to be reviewed by the FAA. What harm is done in allowing someone to log SIC in an aircraft rated for one pilot (as long as he/she is properly trained as an SIC in that aircraft) when the insurance co. requires two pilots for the aircraft to be dispatched?

 

[A Squared]

Seems wrong to prevent someone required for the flight to log the flight time. It seems open and shut to me: BE20 (king air 200) flies with two pilots, sits with one pilot. I think this reg needs to be reviewed by the FAA. What harm is done in allowing someone to log SIC in an aircraft rated for one pilot (as long as he/she is properly trained as an SIC in that aircraft) when the insurance co. requires two pilots for the aircraft to be dispatched?

DO you really want to know why? or do you just want to complain about how mean the regulations are?

If you allowed insurance policies to dictate the legitimacy of SIC time, as sure as god made little green apples, you'd have a bunch of places get insurance policies on thier C-150's which required an "SIC" and start selling timebuilding packages with 2 people in a 150 building time for thier CPLs and ATPs. Presumably you are astute enough to grasp that having ATP applicants with 300 hours of PIC and 1200 hours of C150 SIC time is an undesirable situation?

Look, drawing the line at SIC's who are required by the regulations is a reasonable, common sense place to draw the line. It may be currently inconvenient for you, but it makes a great deal of sense.

 

[wings421]

Exactly... If the insurance says you need two pilots even though the aircraft isn't certificated as such, that airplane does NOT fly unless that right seat is filled. Seems wrong to prevent someone required for the flight to log the flight time. It seems open and shut to me: BE20 (king air 200) flies with two pilots, sits with one pilot. I think this reg needs to be reviewed by the FAA. What harm is done in allowing someone to log SIC in an aircraft rated for one pilot (as long as he/she is properly trained as an SIC in that aircraft) when the insurance co. requires two pilots for the aircraft to be dispatched?

This is one of the more ignorant posts I've seen on flightinfo.com

Because - Flying Illini is serious.

 

[Flying Illini]

DO you really want to know why? or do you just want to complain about how mean the regulations are?

If you allowed insurance policies to dictate the legitimacy of SIC time, as sure as god made little green apples, you'd have a bunch of places get insurance policies on thier C-150's which required an "SIC" and start selling timebuilding packages with 2 people in a 150 building time for thier CPLs and ATPs. Presumably you are astute enough to grasp that having ATP applicants with 300 hours of PIC and 1200 hours of C150 SIC time is an undesirable situation?

Look, drawing the line at SIC's who are required by the regulations is a reasonable, common sense place to draw the line. It may be currently inconvenient for you, but it makes a great deal of sense.

I was curious, I don't think the regs are "mean." I never looked at it the way you described. Probably because I wasn't looking for a way to "cheat the system." I didn't consider all possibilities, thanks for bringing it up.
Still, as "ignorant" as it is, I'm sure that abuse of the reg could be prevented by insurance companies only providing this type of insurance to pax/charter operators of large twins (maybe restrict it to certain types of aircraft to prevent abuse?). Something along those lines. Look, I'm not trying to write the reg, I just posted an honest question. I had one answer and one attack. Whatever.
I see that in the FAA's eyes, an SIC isn't required but My "ignorant" question still remains: How is an SIC not considered a required crewmember if the airplane can't fly without one?
If you just read the regs, then yes, it's a stupid question, now try explaining this situation to someone not familiar with the regs and I'm sure they'll say that since an SIC is required for the airplane to fly, then an SIC is a required crewmember.
And just for the record...I only log my BE20 PIC time.

 

[bigD]

How is an SIC not considered a required crewmember if the airplane can't fly without one?

The only reason the airplane isn't flying is because the insurance company says it can't. As far as the FAA is concerned, the plane can be flown. Think of it this way, if the owner of the plane said that it can only fly if a third pilot was riding in the back as a backup, should that guy be a required crewmember in the eyes of the FAA? After all, the plane doesn't fly without him.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I see that in the FAA's eyes, an SIC isn't required but My "ignorant" question still remains: How is an SIC not considered a required crewmember if the airplane can't fly without one?

Sure it can. It will be uninsured but it can certainly legally fly.

I think that may have been A Squared's point. The insurance company is making a safety determination in deciding what kinds of things it will cover. Of course it has greater influence over business operations, but it's really no different than, say, a company deciding that it will only fly with two pilots on board even if the FAA and an insurance company say it's okay. A lot of those fake "SIC" programs are directly based on that concept.

I even once saw a post in which someone said that they were planning a trip in a 172 that was going to cross a substantial part of open water and wanted to have a copilot on board. Wanted to know if the co-pilot could log SIC time. Great idea - having extra hands and eyes on board for a higher-risk trip - exactly the same kind of determination an insurer makes, and in may ways an even better one.

But no. Since the only purpose of the Part 61 logging rules is to show that a pilot has the qualifications to apply for an FAA certificate, rating or currency, the FAA decided that the rules about what time could be use had to be uniform. So it takes the simple stance that in order to log time as SIC that can be used to show qualification for certificates, ratings or currency, the extra pilot must be required by regulation. Not personal choice (even wise ones), company policy (even good ones), or insurance dictates.

If you think the =experience= is valuable, set up a clearly identified non-Part 61 "Co-Pilot" column in your log book. You can't use the time to count for an FAA certificate, but perhaps your next employer will look at it as a gauge of experience.

 

[nosehair]

There are lots of King Airs flying around out there by personal owners with only one pilot. They are probably paying a higher insurance rate. Would you want it to be a regulation to have a co-pilot on your personal airplane?

 

[Lead Sled]

Sure it can. It will be uninsured but it can certainly legally fly.

Midlifeflyer hit it square on...
Remember, it's not the FAA that determines what you can fly, it's the insurance companies. All an FAA certificate means is that you had the financial resources and the "stick-to-itness" to get a particuliar license, rating, or type-rating. The insurance companies set the standards of experience and operational conditions that you must meet in order to exercise them in the real world. In the case of a KA200 with two pilots - sure, it's legal with one; but the insurance company is saying that if you want it to be insured when it's flown, there's going to have to be two pilots with a stated amount of experience up front. That's all well and good, but even though the insurance company requires it, as far as the FAA is concerned, that extra guy is just a passenger with a front row seat.

Lead Sled