Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[time builder]

I'm not getting into what defends my company, nor will I, I'm not their spokesperson. I am defending what I've always been admonished to know, that is: how to justify a pilot logging time.

Have you had enough? As I said the other day, I'm just about done here, but you summoned me back, so here I am. We've given time building pilots plenty to think about, and again I think we're losing steam as far as the productivity of this discussion.

You insist I'm not listening, I am. I've also listened to the other side, theirs is more compelling to me. If you haven't caught my drift in this whole thread, I'm not a lawyer, I'm mostly passing on the other side's argument from the perspective of a pilot, and obviously defending my own intentions.

I have agreed with a lot of the things you've said, avbug, hopefully our next subject will be more pleasant. I'm gonna try to leave it at that.

 

[avbug]

I am defending what I've always been admonished to know, that is: how to justify a pilot logging time.

If that's the case, you're "defending" it incorrectly with misinformation, bad references, and a very poor understanding of the subject material. Thus far you've been 100% wrong.

Have you had enough? As I said the other day, I'm just about done here, but you summoned me back, so here I am.

Summoned you? I've repeatedly advised you to quit while you're ahead. This is the opposite of summoning you. It seems that you can't post at all, without being exactly 100% wrong. Every step of the way.

I had enough of you the first time you entered into the discussion to disclose your underhanded association.

You've been shown to be involved in not only a shady, but illegal operation, selling flight time for significant amounts of money. Enough in fact, that you've moved far beyond a misdemeanor to a felony. An attorney would tell you to shut up. You've been advised to shut up. You'd do well to shut up. Nobody has summoned you back. You've done that by yourself, and as you were advised very early on, you simply keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. While undoubtably your employer has no shame, your employer most certainly won't appreciate your leaving fingerprints and public statements where you ought not. One more time; you really need to shut up and slink away before you completely bury yourself, and your employer.

Do you understand this, yet? If not, keep yaking away. I'm more than happy to watch someone of your ilk sink right to the bottom, if that's what you really want. If you're you're that anxious to ram your head against the wall repeatedly, I'll even help you locate someone who has a reason to file...in the interest of cleaning up this industry one little pebble at a time.

...I'm mostly passing on the other side's argument from the perspective of a pilot,...

A classic example of one who doesn't, won't, or can't think for himself. I think we're done.

 

[brokeflyer]

so let's wait for the next episode of "who get's the last word?"

 

[Paradoxus]

I'm not getting into what defends my company, nor will I, I'm not their spokesperson. I am defending what I've always been admonished to know, that is: how to justify a pilot logging time.

Unbelievable. You are, in actuality, defending what has proven to be a wholly illicit justification for as much. The controlling regulations governing exactly this have been presented at length.

Have you had enough? As I said the other day, I'm just about done here, but you summoned me back, so here I am. We've given time building pilots plenty to think about, and again I think we're losing steam as far as the productivity of this discussion.

Had enough? Heh. This suggests to me you still consider this to be a debate, whereas I think it far more accurate to call it just what avbug did: a scathing, indicting exposure of fraud.

You insist I'm not listening, I am. I've also listened to the other side, theirs is more compelling to me. If you haven't caught my drift in this whole thread, I'm not a lawyer, I'm mostly passing on the other side's argument from the perspective of a pilot, and obviously defending my own intentions.

More compelling than a citation of easily-accessed evidence that demonstrates the contrary?

I have agreed with a lot of the things you've said, avbug, hopefully our next subject will be more pleasant. I'm gonna try to leave it at that.

Then why not admit your defeat? You cannot justify the veracity of such a "program" with respect to what is permitted in the regulations. Not only is the "service" your company provides unethical, it is totally fraudulent in its claims of what it can deliver.

I noticed that FR requires that clients of the program are required to have a CPL. Why? It seems like a superfluous stipulation given the hard facts surrounding the arrangement.

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

http://flightopenings.com/index.php...sting&layout=viewjob&vj=2&jobcat=58&jobid=230

It looks like they're hiring captains. I wonder if the company would accept the 300 hours SIC as counting towards the required 500 multi. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[livin'thesim]

Could anyone please cite the Operations Specifications page that would cover this issue?

In my career, which has been with maybe half a dozen 135 operators, the only page I recall that touches on this issue is A015, Autopilot in Lieu of Required Second in Command.

For passenger IFR, the requirements are structured that the SIC is always required unless the PIC demonstrates autopilot proficiency at checkride time. So, even if you have a King Air with an autopilot, the SIC is required unless this A015 is issued for that aircraft, and that PIC is trained and checked.

I only bring up this as a side issue to clarify what Ops Specs page is being referenced in this argument. Perhaps what a lot of people mean is that some companies place such an SIC requirement in the Company Operations Manual?

The company manual is a click further down the hierarchy than the operations specifications, in that in the event of a conflict, the ops specs is controlling.

I've gone round and round with lots of FAA inspectors about General Ops Manual as a legal document, and have received lots of different amswers. Several inspectors told me that if the Ops Manual requires pilots to wear neckties, then in the strictest sense, they could violate a pilot for flying without one (they wouldn't, they were just pointing out that they felt they could).

Other inspectors told me that in effect, they could not violate a pilot for GOM non-comliance unless an FAR had been violated. One example given was that suppose a company's manual prohibited night VFR flights. Since night VFR is legal, they said that they could not violate a pilot for acting against the manual. This interpretation, by the way, came from someone higher than the normal FSDO inspector level.

This means that these differing inspectors would have differing views on whether a statement in the Ops Manual requiring an SIC would have any effect of legally requiring one.


What I think is interesting is that when you spend a lot of time working with the FAA, you learn that the regs are not interpreted with the same black and white absolutism that we, as pilots (including me), would like to see.

We can read a reg and lawyer about it all day long, and we can feel that somehow we are able to see the 'truth' in the reg much better than others.

But without reading the original rulemaking document and/or seeing an interpretation from FAA legal (sometimes they do a sudden about-face as well), any attempt at regulatory absolutism may be pointless.

What really matters is what the FAA wants you to do and not do. This is learned through reading interps and enforcement actions.

The FAA is keenly aware that this type of logging is going on, and yet I have yet to hear of an instance where someone was violated for such logging. I would be interested to hear it ever happened. If it did, it would give tremendous weight to the opponents of this kind of logging.


That said, I am against pay for time programs.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I think most of the posters on here are saying that this individual company may not be doing it on the up and up. They may not have the approved SIC training program and items in their ops specs to approve such a program.

 

[brokeflyer]

last time, the plane, operation and regulations DO NOT require a second in command.

UNLESS in section a of the ops specs the FAA requires the operator to have an SIC. And it ill say "operations require a second-in-command", in that case then the SIC can log time. That however is a whole other issue because then the captain would be taking his checkrides with an sic there. i.e. no single pilot.

I never said these jokers couldn't use SIC's, I said those SIC's couldnt not log the time because they aren't required crewmembers. And in this case, which we cant see their ops specs, the only way their statements of "logging sic time" on their web page is legal, is if the FAA requires them to have an sic per their ops specs. Because the plane(b99) and the operation (freight) dont require an sic.

so, to end this thread, this company charges a sic for flight time they can't log.

case closed.

 

[JAFI]

Since this is a "legal" discussion - If the aircraft or operation does not require an SIC then the person sitting in the other seat is legally a passenger not a required or any other flight crewmember. It does not matter if they are a pilot or not, there is no legal requirement for them to be there. They are not exercising the privileges of a pilot. The same reason a 135 VFR Day only Cessna 172 does not require a SIC. Any one sitting in the right seat is a passenger.

To my knowledge the current Automated OP Specs has no provision for a 135 Cargo operator to require a SIC in an aircraft that does not require an SIC. That is why I asked for a Op Specs reference. Since no one came up with one I would look at this as some one selling you a car and saying they will "mail" you the title. Keep both hands on your money.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I think most companies are pretty touchy about employees spreading their proprietary information, such as FOM's and Ops Specs around on the internet. If you are the "civil service type" you claim to be you would probably have a better chance at looking into some of the companies that use these programs. How about confront the POI's or the local FSDO and ask them how they can allow such an illegal operation to continue. Up to and including carrying illegal passengers. They would probably like to know about it because these companies are being so hush hush about it, I mean they only advertise in every aviation magazine and on the internet. Go get em tiger.

 

[JAFI]

I cannot "confront" a POI or Office about anything; you need to go to a higher pay grade than me. (I have tried in the past, everyone I confronted got a promotion) That office, region or HQ can do that.

OP Specs are not private. There are Freedom of Information legal issues though. A written request to that office to obtain copies of documents (there is a copy fee involved).

A citizen can contact that Regional Office or HQ with their concern. A letter does leave a paper trail. Or call the national hot line phone number. This is tracked by HQ.

Senator Oberstar is a contact and he likes to hear about the FAA.

http://www.oberstar.house.gov/

D.C. Office
2365 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6211

I would be called a whistle blower and given a desk in a closet with a blinking light bulb with nothing to do untill I retire.

Can freight company carry (non-rev employee or non-employee) passengers? That could bear looking into.

There is no FAA requirement that companies be "Smart" or any way of measuring "Smart" that I know of.......

 

[brokeflyer]

the only thing you'll find in the ops specs, is a FAA requirement for an SIC. Which I'm 99% sure they wont have in there. The faa issues that little line when they have an operator they wish to have an SIC regardless of the plane or operation.

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.

So your right, hold on to your money. You cant log the time in this plane. You will listed on the w&b as a cargo handler, not an sic. Good luck explaing that 500 hours of BE99 time. You're next employer will know what you're talking about more than you would.

good luck with that one.

 

[livin'thesim]

Again, any examples of the FAA stopping this anywhere, or violating a pilot for logging this type of time?

The FAA certainly knows that this happens.

 

[livin'thesim]

the only thing you'll find in the ops specs, is a FAA requirement for an SIC. Which I'm 99% sure they wont have in there. The faa issues that little line when they have an operator they wish to have an SIC regardless of the plane or operation.

What page would that be on?

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.

A015 gives the authority to use an autopilot in lieu of SIC. Why would the FAA need to specify that an SIC is required? All they would need to do is not issue this authorization and the SIC would be required by default.

 

[brokeflyer]

Can freight company carry (non-rev employee or non-employee) passengers? That could bear looking into.

well normally yes, provided said passenger isn't being carried for compensation.

but this winner of the next safety award freight company is CHARGING for people to sit in the right seat and log illegal flight time. If they aint crewmembers, and they are paying an hourly rate, does that make it an instructional flight? Now they are giving flight instruction during a 135 leg. Is the PIC a check airman, that is the only way that would work. Is he a company designated instructor?

I could really rip that one apart.

 

[brokeflyer]

What page would that be on?




A015 gives the authority to use an autopilot in lieu of SIC. Why would the FAA need to specify that an SIC is required? All they would need to do is not issue this authorization and the SIC would be required by default.

yes, but if you have a autopilot, or fly freight, they need to ADD that a SIC is required otherwise you cant use the autopilot, because the autopilot is a required part of the checkride. unless one isnt installed.

 

[brokeflyer]

Again, any examples of the FAA stopping this anywhere, or violating a pilot for logging this type of time?

The FAA certainly knows that this happens.

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.

 

[avbug]

Could anyone please cite the Operations Specifications page that would cover this issue?

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.

The operations in question may very well have an approved SIC program. The regulation does not need to require a SIC or order to obtain approval for a training program, and use a SIC. However, the question isn't whether the operation can have a SIC on board. The question is whether the SIC can log the time. As we've seen in more than enough detail, 14 CFR 61.51 has no provision to enable one engaged in the operations in question to log the flight time as SIC.

The SIC may be legally trained and may legally operate in the aircraft (though as the defenders of the practice have already noted...they're not employees, but individuals buying flight time for the purposes of logging hours)...but can't log the time. The problem here is that the programs are expressly developed and sold, and advertised, for the purposes of logging flight time. Freightrunners Express, as advertised by the original poster, is selling a service it cannot legally provide. The sum at which they are selling this service makes it not only fraudulent, but a felony.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

What about my prior employer? I got a SIC checkout in our aircraft, none of which required an SIC. We would then do online training for a week or so and then take our PIC checkout. This company also had SIC's who would pay for training. You are saying I can not log the time as an SIC in that aircraft? Even if the Ops Specs have approved of this program? I have an FAA guy on here who thinks I possibly could have been an illegal passenger and then at points carried illegal passengers? All under the oversight of the local FAA examiners and FSDO? Come on guys. Are you all serious? You guys really need to find a hobby.

 

[avbug]

Again, anyone can use an SIC under 135, if they have an approved training program.

The particulars of your question have been spelled out, over and over, throughout the length of this thread, and reading them first would probably be a better choice than repeating the same answered questions over and over.

The regulation, and the operations specifications covering the answer to your question has been provided line by line.

You failed to cite the kind of operation applicable to your operation. If you were in an all cargo operation lacking a requirement for a SIC under Part 135 (the opspecs don't require a SIC for an all cargo operation, as previously explained)...the no, you had no grounds to log the time. If you were a passenger operation, then yes, you did, depending on the authorizations extended your operation, and the type and scope of the operation itself. Again, all previously explained.

Then again, you're not really asking a question, are you? You're arguing a point you don't understand. Go back and read the thread, digest it a little, and you might learn something.

This company also had SIC's who would pay for training.

That would put you in the same pathetic society as 8inman and time builder, then.

 

[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.