Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[time builder]

$13500 could buy a good bit of time in a light twin that you could fly all buy your self.
PFT= donating everyone elses wages to a black hole you Piece of $hit!!

Right, about 70 hours if you split time in a seminole. If you think that's going to count more in an interview than 200 hours SIC in a BE99, I'll respect your opinion, but disagree.

What I don't respect is your profane name calling in an attempt to silence an opposing view.

 

[JAFI]

LMFAO - - First Officer Intern??????? You have got to be flame bait.

Why don't you offer they sit in the right seat of an 18 wheeler playing MFS for half the price????

Sitting in the right seat is invaluable. - - Paying some one for the right to FLY ALONG should be illegal.

 

[time builder]

My bad on the math, it's not letting me edit. More like just over a hundred split hours on the seminole. My argument still stands.

 

[svcta]

Yes,but your argument is moot because the time in the BE99 in this case isn't legit because a SIC is not required.

That's a big risk to take hoping that no one chooses to call you out for it in the future.


I had two friends that did this. one logged SIC jet time in a citation under part 91 (single-pilot operation) and the other in a king air 350, part 91, as well.

One doesn't fly anymore and the other went is out there somewhere flying his heart out, but I'm determined that a bunch of his time is merely pen time.

 

[time builder]

Yes,but your argument is moot because the time in the BE99 in this case isn't legit because a SIC is not required.

That's a big risk to take hoping that no one chooses to call you out for it in the future.


I had two friends that did this. one logged SIC jet time in a citation under part 91 (single-pilot operation) and the other in a king air 350, part 91, as well.

One doesn't fly anymore and the other went is out there somewhere flying his heart out, but I'm determined that a bunch of his time is merely pen time.

You're giving me two part 91 examples to show me that a part 135 checked FO (at a company with FAA approved ops specs requiring the FO) is not legitimate?

As far as the king air 350 goes, I agree, I flew a little bit as a king air 200 FO, but couldn't justify logging the time, so I didn't. I can, however, see clearly in my company ops specs how my BE99 FO is justified.

 

[time builder]

LMFAO - - First Officer Intern??????? You have got to be flame bait.

Why don't you offer they sit in the right seat of an 18 wheeler playing MFS for half the price????

Sitting in the right seat is invaluable. - - Paying some one for the right to FLY ALONG should be illegal.

If I might add a little playful sarcasm, my 4000 hours as captain of an Orbit airlines 737-400 has been incredibly useful on my resume.

As far as the other comment goes, it might help to know a little about the history of the programs. It started out as a third parties petitioning companies like mine for time in the right seat (at AMF it still is).

The fact of the matter is that these companies wouldn't want FOs if they weren't compensated for them. Honestly, most of them are more of a liability than an asset in the cockpit. When they do get up to speed and become an asset in the cockpit, most of them ditch us for the first airline job they can find.

 

[svcta]

You're giving me two part 91 examples to show me that a part 135 checked FO (at a company with FAA approved ops specs requiring the FO) is not legitimate?

As far as the king air 350 goes, I agree, I flew a little bit as a king air 200 FO, but couldn't justify logging the time, so I didn't. I can, however, see clearly in my company ops specs how my BE99 FO is justified.

Yes, I did give two part 91 examples. But we have assumed until now that the company in question doesn't have specs requiring an FO. Are we wrong?

If so, it's even more slimy.

 

[brokeflyer]

i really doubt this crap operation has ops specs requireing a SIC....otherwise they wouldnt be "charging" for that position. they would just hire one.

The plane dont need an SIC, the regs dont and the type of operation dont. Therefore, the butt-raped sic here can't even "legally" log the time. The so called checkride is useless. This place is mearly charging for flight time that they are already getting paid for.

Total BS.

 

[joe_pilot]

Central Air Southwest used to have a similar program. Their GOM was written to require only one pilot, but required an SIC only if and when an SIC was present.

Yes, you read that right.

Single pilot ops only unless an authorized SIC was in the plane, then the SIC was required!! WTF!?

I need whoever wrote that one to write a pre-nup for me: "Husband not allowed to sleep with other women unless another woman is in the bed, then he must sleep with her"

-JP

 

[time builder]

Yes, I did give two part 91 examples. But we have assumed until now that the company in question doesn't have specs requiring an FO. Are we wrong?

If so, it's even more slimy.

You've assumed. I know my company does with the same type of plane, therefore it's entirely possible they could/should take advantage of the opportunity if they haven't already.

Even still, like I posted earlier, this is part 135, and in order to fly 10 hours in a day, you need to have a dual crew. It's not like you can have a captain fly single pilot on an 8 hour day, and then suddenly add the FO for another 2, the FO needs to be there from the begining of the 24 hour period. Under part 91 there is no flight time regulation unless there's instructing involved.

Also you haven't addressed the validity of the 135 check ride. You can't legally touch the controls on a part 135 leg unless you've passed your checkride. If the FAA is going to make a stink about it, they need to do so when the 293 form hits their desk. If it's not legitmiate, they need to step in and tell them the checkride is invalid and the FO can't fly. To say this is a "slimy" situation would imply that the FAA doesn't know about it, I would strongly disagree.

 

[svcta]

Well, now you're assuming, aren't you.

I still contend that if they need the SIC then making someone pay for the job is nothing more than slimy.

if they don't then it's just plain shady. There. Got my bases covered.

 

[joe_pilot]

I still contend that if they need the SIC then making someone pay for the job is nothing more than slimy.

This isn't fact, it's opinion.

One that I pretty much agree with.

-JP

 

[time builder]

Well, now you're assuming, aren't you.

I still contend that if they need the SIC then making someone pay for the job is nothing more than slimy.

if they don't then it's just plain shady. There. Got my bases covered.

I'm not assuming anything other than they're part 135 (which alone provides justification, if you even read and understood that part) and could have ops specs requiring an FO. If you read otherwise, you read wrong.

And to say they're justifed or useful, doesn't imply that they're essential. At Gulfstream, they are essential, and the flight cannot operate without them. In the case of cargo, we can operate single pilot without them. Eliminating the cargo FO programs won't create any jobs. I get the feeling that some on this board are somehow stuck on the idea that it would.

Having a safety pilot is useful, but you can still fly without them. However, you have a mutually beneficial arrangement which makes both pilots required (and thus both log time), but no one is arguing against that.

 

[svcta]

I'm all for them being in the airplane. But there's no reason that the company should charge someone for it. Especially since there is a real possibility that the "SIC" in this case can't technically log the time.

The "safety pilot" as we'll call him would be very useful. I used to take one along on my cargo flights whenever I could. Fetch charts, make a phone call to the company while I paid fees or vice versa, etc. But my company understood it for what it was. Someone who could log a little time on the part 91 legs and who could reduce our workload during normal ops with cargo. Everybody won, nobody was taken advantage of. They developed a sense of how we operated and would be great employees when they got the time required. More than one guy came along through that company that way. We liked having them around and they learned a lot and didn't have to pay us for it, and since they weren't required crew it was volunteer work. Though, we would at least buy their meals on the road. And there were a lot of part 91 legs as we zig zagged across N. America and Mexico so they did get some good twin time out of the deal. And international experience. All it cost them was their time and gas to drive to the airport.

Again, everybody won.

 

[time builder]

Our dispatchers and line service guys occasionally ride along too, although letting them fly part 91 legs would probably be putting your job as captain on the line at my company. Even still, the FO program isn't going to deny these guys that opportunity if they don't want to pay for the part 135 stuff.

I sense this argument is going back to the "morally wrong" side, which I again respectfully disagree where I feel the money is adequate compensation for training and liability. Also, the demand is on the consumer side, not the employer. If it were a recruiting program (like Airnet's) the applicants would have to interview and commit to employment after they become captain eligable, and yes they'd have their training paid for. As it stands with these programs, FOs are the one's keeping the program going, we don't actively recruit for it (we'll leave that to Eagle Jet). FOs just gotta play by the rules and pass their checkrides, after that they're free to leave.

Again, with the post on the thread, I give 8inman the benefit of the doubt that he's letting people know of opportunities more than actively recruiting for his own personal gain.

 

[svcta]

Yes, but there may not be a need for the SIC in which case training and a checkride are totally extraneous and only exist to generate justification to charge for the seat.

The the OP: Is an SIC required by or mentioned at all in your ops specs for cargo?

 

[avbug]

Our ops don't require an SIC, but that doesn't mean you can't log it. For example, some jets are certified single-pilot as well, but most of the time they are flown with two pilots both logging it.

You really have no understanding of the regulation, have you?

Your firm is raping the industry, no matter how you slice it. Not only are you unwilling to pay a crewmember, but expect the crewmember to find his or her own lodging, to boot. To call the practice dispicable would be a kindness.

You're lowering the bar for the industry, no matter how you might try to dress this act of defecating on your fellow pilot.

Your firm isn't the first to sell a seat, and won't be the last in a long line of pathetic, shameless ethical failures. That you're willing to flaunt it here says nothing good about you, or the firm in question.

 

[brokeflyer]

for once avbug agrees with what I said.

You CAN'T log the time as SIC....your ops spec dont require and SIC and the plane dont require an SIC.

It cant be logged period.

UNDERSTAND? or would like me to put it a diffrent way. Being a former FAA inpspector you guys better be careful with what you are doing. Make sure on the weight and balance you dont have your "SIC" listed as anothing other than a "employee".

PM me and ill help you out.

 

[Mickey]

I always thought interns worked for free or got paid a little bit. Since when do interns have to pay. Call it what it is. This is not an internship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern

 

[brokeflyer]

it is obviously a dirtbag operation, that is the only thing that is clear.