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.
just deleted most of my post 
