Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[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.