Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[Secret Squirrel]

Oh yea, well you are ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

 

[livin'thesim]

yes, I know one of my co-workers a few years ago nailed a guy for his log book during a type ride in a lear.

This joker "claimed" to have 1200 hours "sic" in a king air. Problem was after blowing the check ride and further diggin, he was doing exactly what this place is doing.

I guess what I meant was does anyone know of the FAA busting anyone on this type of logged time. Was the guy FAA?

 

[livin'thesim]

I already devoted a post to the OpSpecs, demonstrating that a SIC is not required in the case in question. Neither is a provision available in the OpSpecs to require the SIC. It's not an issue for the Operations Specifications.

That was the point I was hinting at. Lots of pilots throw the term "ops specs" around when they mean are actually referring the company's policies that are stated in the company-developed portion of the manual required by 135.

Just a pet peeve of mine, I guess.

I friend of mine worked for a single-pilot operator who added a light twin. The faa REQUIRED them, per section A of their ops specs, to have an SIC in a c310. They were a new operator and this was a safety issue. Otherwise they wouldn't have an sic.

I'm really curious what the text looks like that brokeflyer is referring to, and what page it would be located on.

 

[brokeflyer]

I guess what I meant was does anyone know of the FAA busting anyone on this type of logged time. Was the guy FAA?

no, he was a line pilot for some 135 operator. My buddy was the faa guy that busted him.

They wern't able to account for the time he logged compared to the operation he was flying. He was riding right seat in a metro doing freight loggin it as SIC time which counts as total time, and currency etc.

it wasnt pretty.

 

[JAFI]

After reviewing the 135 regs, I agree In the discussion here that a SIC can be on a Cargo only BE99 if the following conditions are met: (in short – have an approved program for an EMPLOYEE, I’m not so sure about an Intern…..)


FAR 1: Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.

135.85 Carriage of persons without compliance with the passenger-carrying provisions of this part.

The following persons may be carried aboard an aircraft without complying with the passenger-carrying requirements of this part:
(a) A crewmember or other employee of the certificate holder.



135.115 Manipulation of controls.

No pilot in command may allow any person to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight conducted under this part, nor may any person manipulate the controls during such flight unless that person is—
(a) A pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft;


135.95 Airmen: Limitations on use of services.

No certificate holder may use the services of any person as an airman unless the person performing those services—
(a) Holds an appropriate and current airman certificate; and
(b) Is qualified, under this chapter, for the operation for which the person is to be used.


135.245 Second in command qualifications.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), no certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as second in command of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating. For flight under IFR, that person must meet the recent instrument experience requirements of part 61 of this chapter.

135.63 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Each certificate holder shall keep at its principal business office or at other places approved by the Administrator, and shall make available for inspection by the Administrator the following—
(4) An individual record of each pilot used in operations under this part, including the following information:

-----

I did not dig much more. The term Employee kept popping up. No mention of Intern...When a "Intern" pays to be on the flight, that starts to smack of being a paying passenger not a crewmember. But I would have to call Legal on that.

 

[brokeflyer]

this is getting funny. Reminds me of giving flight checks and asking a tough question and watch them squirm.

It's funny at first but then you have to feel bad for the guy.

 

[bizjet800]

I think this topic has been beaten to China. I am out of popcorn so let's give it up move on! Very entertaining I might add!!!

 

[avbug]

JAFI,

They can use a SIC legally. That's not in question, and has been addressed repeatedly.

Where the problem occurs here is that they're selling flight time that can't be logged in accordance with the regulation.

 

[livin'thesim]

Did anyone cover the issue of logging as sole manipulator on legs flow by the "SIC"?

Problem is, that is a provision for logging PIC, which is even more suspect (assume a non type rating aircraft).

Also, did FAA legal ever issue an interp about this particular issue?

Brokeflyer: Did the guy get violated?

 

[avbug]

Logging PIC while sole manipulator on legs operated in accordance with Part 91 only? Yes, legal...but again, that's not the way this program is sold, and to explain to future employers that one has bought a job as SIC and logged PIC when one wasn't even entitled to log SIC under the provisions of the regulation is somewhat of a stretch.