Logging SIC time!!

[outdoorsguy]

Can you log SIC time flying for a 135 operator if the aircraft is flown single pilot when a SIC is not available? Example of aircraft could be a Caravan, BE99, or Metroliner ect...

 

[Thedude]

Only if you have passed a 135 SIC checkout and the company's Ops Specs allows for and SIC in single pilot aircraft.

Do a search ...this has been covered many times.

 

[outdoorsguy]

I am sorry....I am new to the website

 

[some_dude]

And only if you are carrying passengers (so not cargo only).

 

[Junkflyer]

Sic in a Caravan probably won't do anything to impress the people who will be interviewing you in the future. It may raise some difficult to answer questions.

 

[A Squared]

Only if you have passed a 135 SIC checkout and the company's Ops Specs allows for and SIC in single pilot aircraft.

Do a search ...this has been covered many times.

Uhhh. no, in order to log SIC, the SIC has to be required. allowed does not equal required.

 

[varicam]

Uhhh. no, in order to log SIC, the SIC has to be required. allowed does not equal required.

I'd like to differ on this, I believe you have it bass ackwards. FAR 135.101 requires a SIC for Part 135 passenger IFR flight. Naturally, a SIC needs current training and checking and must be assigned as the SIC on a flight in order to act as SIC and log the time. Any reference to "allowed" in this context applies to an autopilot which may be allowed (authorized) in lieu of a SIC if all the hoops are jumped through. But, an operator authorized to use an autopilot may still elect to assign a SIC if the operator so chooses. Therefore, a SIC is never "allowed", but is either required and can log time or is not required and cannot touch the controls nor log time. The FAA Chief Counsel has put this issue to bed a dozen or so times over the years.

 

[varicam]

Only if you have passed a 135 SIC checkout and the company's Ops Specs allows for and SIC in single pilot aircraft.

Do a search ...this has been covered many times.

Op specs do not allow SICs, FAR 135.101 requires them for passenger IFR flights. Op specs may allow an autopilot to be used in lieu of a SIC at the option of the operator.

Do a search ...this has been covered many times.

 

[A Squared]

I'd like to differ on this, I believe you have it bass ackwards. FAR 135.101 requires a SIC for Part 135 passenger IFR flight. Naturally, a SIC needs current training and checking and must be assigned as the SIC on a flight in order to act as SIC and log the time. Any reference to "allowed" in this context applies to an autopilot which may be allowed (authorized) in lieu of a SIC if all the hoops are jumped through. But, an operator authorized to use an autopilot may still elect to assign a SIC if the operator so chooses.

I agree that there is a grey area when you are talking about autopilot in lieu of an SIC. The FAA may consider it legitimate time if serving as an SIC when the operator choses not to exercize the autopilot exemption. I haven't seen a definitive answer on that subject from an authoritative source, but I'll agree that the waters in that particular situation are muddy.

Therefore, a SIC is never "allowed", but is either required and can log time or is not required and cannot touch the controls nor log time.

No not true at all. there are many instances where SICs are allowed, but not required. 135 baron flying checks under IFR. SIC not required at all, but a number of operators have approval for SICs. The SIC is trained and checked in accordance with 135, which means he isperfecly qualified to manipilate the controls. he *is* a 135 crewmwnber, but he is not by any stretch ofh te imagination required. the airplane doesn't require it, and the operation doesn't require it. The PIC can do the flight without the SIC and no exemption nor special qualification is needed.

I also know of operators who have SIC's on day vfr Caravans. Same situation. the SICs have to be qualified under 135, but there is no *requirement* for them to be on board, and the flights are commonly made without the SIC.

The FAA Chief Counsel has put this issue to bed a dozen or so times over the years.

No, the chief counsel has not. I don't mean to be rude, but you are just spouting this off the top of your head, with absolutely nothing to back this up.

You are, in fact, wrong. The Chief Counsel *has* addressed this issue, and the interpretation says exactly what I am saying. Copied below is the chief counsel's opinion. It establishes that a 135 operator may designate an SIC on a flight where an SIC is not required. It also states very clearly that the SIC may not log the time as SIC if he is not required.


from the interpretation :

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.

Let me ask you something; Did you think you were going to get away with nobody calling you on your lie?

 

[A Squared]

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

 

[varicam]

I give up! You quote the very document that belies your interpretation and yet find that it says something it clearly doesn't. Take it to your lawyer and maybe he or she will explain it to you.

 

[dardar]

yeah, if it's in the ops specs. Airnet, for example, has a program where you can fly as an sic on a baron or something until you get your 1200 135mins. It used to address this issue somewhere on their website, but I can't find it now. Pretty much, I believe it used to be under the FAQs, Airnet brought this issue up with the FAA since so many applicants were asking about the legality, and the FAA said it was legit.

So no, you don't have to carry passengers and it doesn't have to be a two pilot airplane. It just depends on the ops specs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't understand the argument. The FAA Legal Counsel have it A Squared have it exactly right and the opposing view, especially those citing pretend-SIC programs with imaginary FAA backing are living in a world where they try to bend fairly clear rules to fit what they want to do.

61.51(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.
==============================

What's so difficult about that? An OpSpec that says you "may" have an SIC an insurance company that insists of an SIC; a pilot who wants an SIC to help out - none of them make an SIC "required" by a regulation.

 

[CloudyIFR]

or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
==============================

if the A/P is inoperative and carrying passengers or for flight time over 8 hours.

Curtis

 

[transpac]

I don't understand the argument. The FAA Legal Counsel have it A Squared have it exactly right and the opposing view, especially those citing pretend-SIC programs with imaginary FAA backing are living in a world where they try to bend fairly clear rules to fit what they want to do.


What's so difficult about that? An OpSpec that says you "may" have an SIC an insurance company that insists of an SIC; a pilot who wants an SIC to help out - none of them make an SIC "required" by a regulation.

Well, as I understand the orginal question, it concerned "required" SICs, as defined in Part 135.101. The poster wanted to know if a SIC could be used in lieu of an autopilot. Since only IFR passenger carrying operations exercise autopilot authorizations, my assumption is that he wasn't referring to a "pretend" setup in a VFR or cargo scenario. The Chief Counsel has published an opinion to the effect that the presence of an autopilot authorization does not preclude an operator from assigning a qualified SIC to a flight and does not preclude such a SIC from logging the time. The answers and quotes from A Squared (and apparently you also) concern non-required SICs as defined by 135.101. The result of all this is confusion with each individual modifying the question to fit a pre-conceived answer.

BTW, could you post an excerpt from an Op spec that says you "may" have a SIC? I've never actually seen anything like that.

 

[CloudyIFR]

BTW, could you post an excerpt from an Op spec that says you "may" have a SIC? I've never actually seen anything like that.

You won't, because the Regs say an A/P in Lieu of an SIC. So it doesn't need to be in the Ops Specs.
The A/P can work all day long and still use an SIC legally and rightly so, assuming carrying passengers or flying over 8 hours to 10 hours in any operation.

Curtis

 

[transpac]

You won't, because the Regs say an A/P in Lieu of an SIC. So it doesn't need to be in the Ops Specs.
The A/P can work all day long and still use an SIC legally and rightly so, assuming carrying passengers or flying over 8 hours to 10 hours in any operation.

Curtis

No argument from me. The regs require a SIC but allow an autopilot in lieu of an SIC. And, like every other authorization granted by the FAA, an operator can either exercise it or can elect to comply with the underlying regulation. Hadn't thought of the over 8 hours scenario in a cargo operation, but that certainly fits the bill for requiring a SIC.

 

[A Squared]

I give up! You quote the very document that belies your interpretation and yet find that it says something it clearly doesn't. Take it to your lawyer and maybe he or she will explain it to you.

Well varicam, It is truly a mystery to me how you can read this passage from the legal interpretation: (which incidentally is precisely what I've been saying)

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.

And think that it actually means:

Therefore, a SIC is never "allowed", but is either required and can log time or is not required and cannot touch the controls nor log time.

is completely beyond me. The only obvious explanatins are extrordinarily poor eyesight, lack of literacy, or a delusional mental state.


Oh, by the way, where are the other 11 or more interpretations you claim exist?

 

[A Squared]

yeah, if it's in the ops specs. Airnet, for example, has a program where you can fly as an sic on a baron or something until you get your 1200 135mins. It used to address this issue somewhere on their website, but I can't find it now. Pretty much, I believe it used to be under the FAQs, Airnet brought this issue up with the FAA since so many applicants were asking about the legality, and the FAA said it was legit.

So no, you don't have to carry passengers and it doesn't have to be a two pilot airplane. It just depends on the ops specs.

No, not true at all. You are correct, Airnet *does* address this on thier website. They say that you are wrong. If you go this page on the airnet website: http://www.airnet.com/Careers/Flight_crew/flight_FAQ.htm you are referred to this website: http://www.airapps.com/articles/AirNetDec99/airnet.html#log which contains a letter from Airnet's Director of training, which says, in plain english, that unless you are engaging in an operation which requires an SIC (flight over 8 hours, pax under IFR, or t/o below 1800 RVR) the SIC is *not* required, and may *not* log SIC time.

So, yes, it addressed on Airnet's website; No, it *doesn't* say what you think it says.

 

[A Squared]

Well, as I understand the orginal question, it concerned "required" SICs, as defined in Part 135.101. The poster wanted to know if a SIC could be used in lieu of an autopilot. Since only IFR passenger carrying operations exercise autopilot authorizations, my assumption is that he wasn't referring to a "pretend" setup in a VFR or cargo scenario.

Well, that's the trouble, the original question was very vauge, and quite a few assumptions have been made here, including by you.

The actual question was:

Can you log SIC time flying for a 135 operator if the aircraft is flown single pilot when a SIC is not available? Example of aircraft could be a Caravan, BE99, or Metroliner ect...

And it says nothing about passenger operation, nor autopilots. As written the question could include pax or cargo operations with or without autopilots, under IFR or VFR.

The Chief Counsel has published an opinion to the effect that the presence of an autopilot authorization does not preclude an operator from assigning a qualified SIC to a flight and does not preclude such a SIC from logging the time.

Agree, in that specific situation. In a previous post I said that it was a grey area, in digging I found that, like you say, it is addressed in an interpretation, and the A/P in lieu of SIC does not preclude the SIC from logging time.....so not a grey are after all. Beyond that specific situation, the Chief COunsel is quite clear, "designating" an SIC when one is not otherwise required does not allow that SIC to log SIC time. That was my position from the begining. I may not have expressed that clearly.

The answers and quotes from A Squared (and apparently you also) concern non-required SICs as defined by 135.101. The result of all this is confusion with each individual modifying the question to fit a pre-conceived answer.

Not that it's terribly important, but the original question was *very* general, and my initial answer,

in order to log SIC, the SIC has to be required. allowed does not equal required.

was appropriately general. As far as I can see, you are the only one who has thought the question was specifically about 135 IFR pax operations with an autopilot. To clarify, when I said "allowed" I didn't mean that a specific allowance was made in the ops specs, rather that as long as an SIC is qualified, trained and checked in accordance with part 135, it's perfectly legal for him to be assigned as an SIC, therfore "allowed" in a more general sense, ie: not prohibited.

I don't think that really we disagree on much here, other than perhaps about the scope of the original question. :beer: