Low time SIC on King Air

[Sctt@NJA]

I, for the record, also agree with checks 100%

edit: ah phukit just deleted most of my post

 

[jergar999]

Here's one more wrench in the gears. Some companies have in their company Operations Manual (Not Op Specs) that two pilots will be used on ALL flights conducted under 14 CFR Part 135. The inspector then signs the manual, approving it. Can they go single pilot?

 

[mike1mc]

Thank you Varicam! I was just about to post the same thing. You guys just need to read the first 3 paragrpahs to see the difference in the two letters. It is very clear what each is saying. You can log SIC in an aircraft type-certificated for one pilot as long as the regs require an SIC to be there (Pax carrying 135 ops under IFR w/o autopilot or Part 135 with 10+ seats if memory serves correctly). The SIC also needs to have a current 8410 and be instrument current.

Perfect example is the old AirNet SIC program in the Baron. How do you think they pull that one off?

 

[Sctt@NJA]

You can log SIC in an aircraft type-certificated for one pilot as long as the regs require an SIC to be there (Pax carrying 135 ops under IFR w/o autopilot ...


Close but not quite. Even if the operator has the 135.105 auto pilot deal, if they elect to use 2 pilots the SIC can log the time.

They aren't required in the sense that the operator could do the flight without an SIC. But if they CHOOSE to use an SIC they are then considered to be REQUIRED. Its this funny little logic that is explained in letter #2.

This decision on the part of the operator can be made on a flight to flight basis. So a flight in the morning can be done single pilot, and the same flight in the afternoon with a co-pilot, who would be considered REQUIRED only because the operator chooses to have him there.

I think most of us have reached a concensus on these logging of SIC questions. The only point I keep getting bashed on is that I think the 2 letters are inconsistent.

After re-reading letter #1 I thought perhaps the difference lies here- with a reference to 135.103. Unfortunately the FARs I am looking at shows this reg as [Reserved], so I have no idea what this guy is getting at:

"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...

 

[A Squared]

Posted by Be200pilot:

"ive read the same type of letters from Mr Blah at the FSDO saying a totally differnt thing altogether. there are tons of other interpretations of logging time under pt. 135 all from proper authorities. this letter is just another one of those"

Be200pilot,

Apparently you believe that any letter signed by anyone at the FAA has equal weight and that anyone at the FAA can issue their own interpretation. This isn’t even close to being true. If you’re interested, I’ll explain how letters of interpretation work and who issues them. I suspect that you’ll not have the patience to read this, but perhaps someone else will learn something so I will not have wasted my time. This is not just some letter from "Mr. Blah and the FSDO". This is an interpretation from about as high as it gets in the FAA legal department. If I understand it correctly, there are only 2 persons higher than Mr. Bryne in the FAA’s legal division; James Whitlow, the Deputy Chief Counsel, and Andrew Steinberg, The Chief Counsel. Neither of these persons involve themselves in ordinary, run of the mill, legal interpretations such as these. They have bigger fish to fry. The letters of interpretation are pretty much the exclusive province of Mr. Bryne Almost all of the Letters of Interpretation issued by the Office of Chief Counsel in the last decade or so are signed by Mr. Bryne. Occasionally you will see one which is written for Mr. Bryne by one of his subordinates, but it will still carry his name (or his predecessor’s) Some Letters of Interpretation are issued by one of the various Regional Counsels. These regional Counsels are subordinate to the Chief Counsel. Any interpretation from a Regional Counsel *should* be coordinated with the office of Chief Counsel. If an interpretation from a regional counsel was *not* coordinated with the Chief Counsel, and contradicts an interpretation from the Chief Counsel, the interpretation of the Chief Counsel overrules the opinion of the Regional Counsel. Now, about interpretations issued by persons who are not in either the Chief Counsel’s office of one of the offices of Regional Office, ie: "from Mr Blah at the FSDO" (Regional Counsel is usually located at FAA Region Headquarters, not at a FSDO) If you have a letter of interpretation signed by "someone at the FSDO" you can pretty much crumple it up and throw it away, because it has absolutely no official status. No-one outside of FAA counsel is authorized to interpret regulations. I keep hearing about these letters signed by inspectors, but I’ve never seen one, and frankly, I doubt that they exist. An inspector would be stepping well outside his bounds of authority to issue a letter of interpretation and if he made a habit of it, he’d most likely get his pee-pee whacked by FAA counsel. I don’t know what other letters you’ve read, or if you’ve just been told they exist and believed it. Either way, I doubt that you’ve seen or heard of anything which can overrule the letter I’ve posted.

To those of you who think that the two letters are contradictory; I suspect that what is tripping you up is that you think of 135 operations as passenger operations under IFR, probably because that’s what you see most. The thing is there’s plenty of 135 operations which are not passenger carrying or not IFR. There’s plenty of VFR operations, and there’s plenty of cargo only 135 operations. Letter #2 speaks specifically to IFR pax operations with the autopilot exemption. It does *not* say that any 135 operator may designate a non-required SIC and that SIC may log SIC.

Don’t think of Letter #2 as saying that an non-required SIC may log SIC time, think of it as clarifying that in the eyes of the FAA a SIC on a passenger carrying flight under IFR is *considered* required, even if the 135 operator *could have* made the flight without the SIC under the autopilot exemption. I think that if you look at it from that angle, the letters will appear complementary, rather than contradictory. In any event, if there was a contradiction, I believe that Letter #1 would prevail as it is a more recent letter.

>>>>>>"Perfect example is the old AirNet SIC program in the Baron. How do you think they pull that one off? "

Honestly, I don’t know. Airnet is a cargo operation and 135.101 is only applicable to pax ops. My suspicion is that Letter #1 is applicable and that regardless of whatever sunshine Airnet is blowing up their SIC’s hineys, the Airnet SIC’s are not entitled to log the time in the eyes of the FAA.. I agree that it’s perfectly legal for airnet to assign an unrequired SIC (as long as he’s qualified) but I don’t see much wiggle room for that SIC to log SIC time. I suspect that in their zeal to reap revenue from their "employees" they conveniently forget to mention that the time is unloggable.


>>>>>After re-reading letter #1 I thought perhaps the difference lies here- with a reference to 135.103. Unfortunately the FARs I am looking at shows this reg as [Reserved], so I have no idea what this guy is getting at:

Scott, 135.103 used to be an exemption that allowed single pilot IFR ops under special cases, like IFR departures, if the flight could be completed VFR, or IFR if unforcast IFR conditions were encountered. It was removed, possibly because of rampant abuse of it’s provisions.

Posted by Jerger99
>>>>>>"Here's one more wrench in the gears. Some companies have in their company Operations Manual (Not OpSpecs) that two pilots will be used on ALL flights conducted under 14 CFR Part 135. The inspector then signs the manual, approving it. Can they go single pilot?"

Yes, they can. Contrary to popular myth, the operations manual is not regulatory (operations specifications *are* regulatory) . I’ve posted a letter of interpretation (issued by regional counsel, coordinated with Chief Counsel) which clearly states that the operations manual is not regulatory. Now, I have heard form a couple of pilots who say that their Operations Manual says that it is regulatory. It may say that, but that doesn’t make it so. I know that my operations manual (Part 121) says no such thing. I suspect that the statement that the manual is regulatory is added by the POI involved. The POI does not have the authority to make the manual regulatory, particularly in contradiction to the official legal position of the FAA. Here’s an analogy: I could put a sign up in hte Public Park next door which says "No trespassing, private property" but that doesn’t make it private property, and it doesn’t prohibit people from using the park, because I don’t have the authority. Now, some people may be fooled by my sign, but in the end, it’s public property and anyone may use it. The same goes for the manual, the POI does not write the regulations, nor does he interpret them. The people who do, (FAA legal Counsel) say the manual isn’t regulatory. If you find that argument unpersuasive, consider this:

If something is regulatory, than an enforcement may be brought against you for not complying with it. An enforcement *must* state what regulation has been violated. Now I can tell you what regulation you will be charged with if you don’t comply with your operations specification. You’ll be charged with 119.21(a), that’s the regulation which makes Operations specifications regulatory. What regulation makes the Operations Manual regulatory? If you show up for work wearing a blue shirt instead of the white shirt that you manual requires, what regulation are you going to be charged with violating?

Answer: there is no regulation which makes the Operations Manual regulatory.

 

[A Squared]

Letter of Interpretation on Operations Manuals


June 10, 1981
IN REPLY REFER TO: ASO-7
SUBJECT: Enforceability of FAR Section 135.21(a)
FROM: Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel
TO: ASO-200

The second sentence of FAR 135.21(a) provides that "This manual must be used by the
certificate holder's flight, ground and maintenance personnel in conducting its operations."

Your memo dated March 6, 1981, asks, in effect, whether, in light of the foregoing language, noncompliance with the certificate holder's manual by its employees in the conduct of air taxi operations would be a violation of Section 135.21(a).
We believe that Section 135.21 was never intended to be enforced in this manner. In arriving at this conclusion I have reviewed not only the appropriate regulatory sections but also the regulatory history of Section 135.21. Copies of this material are attached for reference. Prior to the time Part 135 was amended in 1978 there only exists the requirement that a certificate holder "prepare and keep current a manual for the use and guidance of flight, ground operations, and maintenance personnel in conducting its operations." As noted above, amended language now provides that these individuals must "use" the manual. The question now arises as to the significance of this change.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 77-17 (42 FR 43490, August 29, 1977) included the following language pertaining to this change:
Section 135.23 [changed to Section 135.21 in the final rule] MANUAL REQUIREMENTS.
... In addition, this section would be revised by amending paragraph (a) to require each
certificate holder who is required to have a manual to prepare a manual acceptable to the
Administrator. Further, each flight, ground, and maintenance employee of the certificate holder would be required to use the manual in the conduct of the certificate holder's flight operations. {p73} This language, on its face, would seem to imply that the FAA was about to make a radical departure from past practice by making noncertificated individuals (that is, ground employees) subject to disciplinary actions. Moreover, the change would be even more radical since we would be enforcing not only standards specified in the FARs but also internal company standards. The extent of this change becomes apparent when considering specific cases. Consider, for example, a company manual requirement which provides that an aircraft refueler must turn in fuel slips to the chief of operations at the end of each day. Could the FAA logically take the position that if the refueler turns in the fuel slips at the end of each week and turns them in directly to the accounting department he would be in violation of the manual, and, therefore, in
violation of Section 135.21(a) and subject to a civil penalty. The answer is self evident.
The language which was adopted in the final rule provides that the manual must be "used." The word "used" is, not defined in Part 1, so under the rules of construction we must apply its commonly accepted meaning. Webster's new collegiate dictionary provides the following definition.
USE (verb) 1. Accustom, habituate 2. to put into action or service; avail oneself of; employ 3.
to consume or take (as liquor or drugs) regularly 4. to carry out a purpose of action by means of; utilize 5. to expend or consume by putting to use 6. to behave toward; act with regard to; treat

In considering this definition it is difficult to conclude that a requirement to use a manual is the same as a requirement to be bound by the manual. This conclusion is further strengthened when other language in the preamble and rule is considered. For example, the third sentence in Section 135.21(a), although addressing deviation, clearly implies that the manual is for the "guidance" of flight, ground and maintenance personnel. Guidance, by definition, is not mandatory but merely informatory. After considering all of the material available and also after discussions with AGC-220 it seems clear that the requirement to "use" the manual was intended to mandate to the OPERATOR to insure that its personnel have sufficient guidance available and that company emphasis be placed on the use of this guidance. It was not intended to be enforceable against individual employees. Now that the foregoing conclusion has been drawn a qualification must be inserted. In almost every case where enforcement action would be appropriate (that is, in cases other than the type used in the example above) there will be an appropriate FAR section other than 135.21(a) on which the violation action can be based. For example, if a pilot violates a manual's weight and balance provisions [see Section 135.23(b)], he will, in all probability, also be in violation of Section 135.185.
There will, of course, be times when an operator imposes on his employees a higher standard than required in the FARs. In a case where an employee violates this higher standard, under the guidance stated above, enforcement action would not be appropriate.
In summary, the rule of thumb should be that if an individual fails to comply with a part of the manual that is made mandatory by some section of the FARs other than Section 135.21(a) then the violated FAR should be cited. If, on the other hand, an individual violates a company standard not covered by the FARs then any enforcement action as to the violation of that standard should be at the discretion of the company.

This opinion has been coordinated with the Office of the Chief Counsel, Operations Law
Branch, AGC-220

 

[Citationkid]

You can still log dual tho, right. If the King Air is single pilot.

 

[LAXSaabdude]

You can still log dual tho, right. If the King Air is single pilot.

If the PIC is a CFI/MEI, and if the aircraft is NOT operated on a FAR Part 135 revenue flight, then a passenger in the front seat could receive dual instruction.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[A Squared]

You can still log dual tho, right. If the King Air is single pilot.

Yes, you can provided 2 conditions are met:

1, As has already been mentioned, the Other Pilot is an MEI,

and

2, Instruction is actually given.

The question is, is instruction actually being given?

OK, so you've got a couple or 5 hours of Dual in a King Air 200, no big deal, but then, 5 hours really doesn't count for much anyway. Now let's say you have 200 hours of Dual logged in a King Air 200, all along the airways.

There's only two possible explanations for this.

1) It was not instruction, but you logged it as instruction anyway.

2) You are such a clueless pilot that you needed 200 hours of instruction to grasp the subtle art of following an airway.

Neither looks very good.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

The best spot I have found for any and all time-logging questions is at:

www.propilot.com

Go to "docs far guide" and then "logging time"

There are I think 11 different official letters of interpretation linked to it, and a lot of well researched editorial.

If nothing else it shows that lots of people do have questions and for good reason!

 

[b727]

What did you hear was wrong with the company and are you sure its the same company. Don't want to steer my friend wrong.