Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[brokeflyer]

Shall we look at this with out the childish name calling????

Some posters keep saying "if it is required by OP SPECS".

Ok, which OP Spec?? Please provide the reference.

As for prior OP Specs, before automated OP Specs some Inspector would type (with an actual typewriter) each page of OP Specs. And I know that most Inspectors are not trained typists. The problem was many OP Specs were just wrong/illegal/not correct/etc. Now an OP Spec must come from a computer data base of "FAA Approved" chapters that the POI can choose from. So prior (old - no longer in use or illegal) OP Specs can not be used today.


So again which OP Spec requires/allows an SIC in an aircraft that does not require an SIC in a cargo operation??? I would like to look this one up.

JAFI

it would be in the list of approved aircraft, if none of them require an sic then that is that. Also in section A, they can add the requirement for an SIC if the faa feels compeled to require an operator to do that.

so, go look it up, and tell me what planes they have in there. there is your answer.

Go ahead and log the time though, dont listen to me. I have a nephew that wants to be a pilot. These pilots loggin illegal sic time will just make a job search easier for my nephew.

 

[JAFI]

Where in section A? What number in section A??

Just because a BE99 is listed does not mean thay can have or must have a SIC.

And I do not "think" they can log the time, BUT if some one has information that I do not have - I am happy to look at it.

 

[brokeflyer]

they can have all the sic's they want. Provided they have a published training manual for that. They can fill every plane with an SIC. But they can't log it.

And im not looking anything up..im retired.

If their ops spec say they need an SIC then that is governing rule. If it don't, then they have to go by the operation or the plane. Neither of which require an SIC. So the SIC cant log it.

Ive said it many times already. If you dont get it then you need to re-read the regulations or PM and ill explain it for you.

 

[avbug]

Requirements to log SIC time, in accordance with 14 CFR 61.51(f):

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

Setting aside the completion of SIC training requird under 61.55, under the presumption that this has properly been completed (as attested by timebuilder and 8inman), we are left with the following criteria for logging this time:

Must occupy a crewmember station in an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember (by the aircraft type certificate).

OR...

Must hold category, class, and instrument rating and either be required under type certificate or regulations under which flight is operated.

61.51(f)(1) is inapplicable, because the aircraft does not require a type certificate. This subparagraph may therefore be dismissed.

61.51(f)(2) is two-prong, or rather, has two options which may be met for compliance. It is an either/or proposition. Either the pilot is qualified and required by the type certificate, OR the pilot is qualified and required by the regulations under which the flight is operated.

The first prong or option of 61.51(f)(2) may be safely dismissed as it is identical to 61.51(f)(1): the type certificate for the aircraft (TCDS A14CE: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/c0a846816b9bfac386257385005c5f33/$FILE/A14ce.pdf) does not require a SIC, and it is certified as a single pilot aircraft (meaning the type certificate does not specify a requirement for more than one crewmember, whereas for aircraft which do require more than one crewmember, the type certificate data sheet will specify the minimum crew).

This leaves only the second prong of 61.51(f)(2), which requires two things: that the crewmember be qualified in the aircraft, and that the crewmember be required by the regulations under which the flight operates.

The crewmember must at a minimum for this operation hold Airplane, Multi-Engine Land category and class ratings on a FAA commercial certificate, in accordance with 135.245(a) and 61.51(f)(2). Again, operating under the fiat, or belief, that both 8inman and time builder are considering only pilots with this qualification, who have completed company training in the aircraft, we are left only to consider a requirement by the regulation under which the flight is operated, stipulating the necessity of a Second in Command.

We may now turn to part 135 to seek a requirement for a SIC. The minimum crew under Part 135 is established by 135.99. 135.99(a) states that the minimum crew required is either that required by the aircraft flight manual, or the kind of operation being conducted. 135.99(b) states that an aircraft configured for ten passenger seats or more requires a SIC.

The aircraft flight manual requires only a single pilot. The aircraft, as configured for freight, does not require a SIC, as it is not configured for ten passenger seats.

This only leaves a requirement under 135.99(a) for a SIC when required by the type of operation under Part 135. The type of operation, in turn, is defined by 119.3 as one of three different types:

Types of operation:
(i) Operations for which the departure time, departure location, and arrival location are specifically negotiated with the customer or the customer's representative;
(ii) All-cargo operations; or
(iii) Passenger-carrying public charter operations conducted under part 380 of this title.

135.3 also defines an all-cargo operation as:

All-cargo operation means any operation for compensation or hire that is other than a passenger-carrying operation or, if passengers are carried, they are only those specified in §§121.583(a) or 135.85 of this chapter.

As this is a cargo operation and not a passenger carrying operation, we may return to part 135 to consider 135.101, which specifies the requirement for a SIC when operating under IFR. The problem for 8inman and time builder is that this requirement only applies to aircraft carrying passengers under IFR when operated in accordance with Part 135...and in discussion here we're talking about all-cargo operations.

As the kind of operation doesn't require a SIC, the type certificate doesn't require a SIC, The aircraft flight manual doesn't require a SIC, and the provisions of part 135 don't require a SIC (remembering that we've already discussed the reasons why 135.267 is not a requirement for a SIC, but only an operational rule governing limitations when a SIC is used), we're left without a requirement for a SIC which meets the criteria for the logging of flight time.

To recap, remember that the criteria are very straight forward. The SIC must be either:
A) qualified in the aircraft and required by the type certificate
or
B) qualified in the aircraft and required by the regulation under which the flight is operated.

Whereas we're shown that (A) is not applicable, the only possible appeal for legal justification is found in (b), the regulation under which the flight is operated.

The flight is operated under part 135. Under this Part, a SIC is only required under specific circumstances, which we've covered. To be required under Part 135, the SIC must be either:
A) required by the aircraft flight manual
or
B) required by the aircraft configuration
or
C) required by the kind of operation

Whereas we know that the aircraft flight manual does not require a SIC, we know that (A) is inapplicable. Whereas we know the aircraft is configured for freight and not for more ten or more passenger seats, we know that (B) is inapplicable. Whereas this is an all cargo operation and a SIC is not required for IFR operations, we know that (C) is inapplicable.

With the requirements under 135 for a SIC not met, we have no recourse under 61.51(f) for the logging of SIC time in this aircraft.

 

[avbug]

Turning now to the OpSpecs, or Operations Specifications, we can look at the requirements applicable in accordance with FSIMS, Volume 3, Chapter 18...which spells out the particulars of OpSpecs and the issuance thereof.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=058F2CED34CC6603862575AD0056619A

These are the rules by which the Principal Operations Inspector for a given certificate holder must abide, or specifically, the guidance he or she must follow, in approving and establishing the pertinent operational authority to that certificate holder as granted by the FAA.

The nature of the operation, in fact, the kind of operation, will be spelled out by A001. It will be clarified by the aircraft operation, in A003. This OpSpec provides what each specific aircraft under the certificate is allowed to do. Not all aircraft may have the same authorizations or be authorized the same operations, so one must look at both A001 and A003 to make a determination particular to the fleet or type of aircraft in question.

OpSpec A004 will spell out any and all Operational Specifications authorized to the certificate holder, and will then clarify what the certificate holder is NOT authorized to do, by OpSpec reference number.

Both 8inman and time builder have repeatedly been asked to identify their OpSpecs with the authorizations they tout, and have failed repeatedly to do so. To save them some time, A004 is the place to start looking.

Specific exemptions and deviations from the regulation will be outlined by OpSpec A005. Bear in mind that neither A004 and A005 are the authorizations for, or prohibitions against any privilege or limitation. These are merely the table of contents, so to speak, pointing to the specific authorizations. The authorizations will be found elsewhere in the OpSpecs. When one is looking for a particular privlege or limitation, one is usually fastest to consult A004 and A005 first, in order to find the item being sought.

A good time to pause here and mention something specific to Part 135 operations, which is often misunderstood: one may always designate a SIC under Part 135 if one has a SIC program in place, and one has received the authorization to make that training and certification official. One may elect to use a SIC, provided all the training is properly executed, and the checkrides, record keeping, and other pertinent and relevant parts of 135 attended. Exemptions are made in the OpSpec, specifically A015, allowing deviation from requirements for a SIC, specifically the use of an autopilot.

Care must be taken here to understand that even though a SIC may be used, and a SIC program may be in place, this is NOT a requirement under 135 in a freight operation that meets any of the requirements of 61.51(f) for the logging of flight time...as we have previously discussed in detail. Again, to be clear...simply because one has a SIC program in a freight operation in a 135 company, this does NOT meet the requirements of Part 61.51 for the logging of that flight time. Refer back to my previous coverage of that topic for detailed analysis as to why.

Next then, we have A015, allowing for single pilot with an autopilot operation, in lieu of a SIC. In the case of the freight operations, a SIC is not required...not required by the aircraft certification, not required by the aircraft type data sheet (type certificate), not required by the kind of operation (as further defined in Part 119.3), not required per 135.99, and not required by 135.101 because this is not a passenger carrying operation. Therefore the SIC isn't required, and while some operators may apply for A015 to authorize the autopilot, it's not necessary in the cases in discussion in this thread. It's often mistaken, however, for something it's not, such as a requirement for a SIC. OpSpecs A037, A038, A039, and A040 apply in part here as well, as detailed in A005 particular to the kind of operation being conducted...but are not authorizations for a SIC or a requirement thereof, either. A058 is also similiar and relevant, but to single plot operations, and is also not an authorization for a SIC.

That covers it for OpSpec Section A, with respect to a need for SIC's and a requirement for them under Part 135.

OpSpec Part B, http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=17A59448A72ADA73862574400062C1FF does not address the need for a SIC or establish a requirement for a SIC. This part covers enroute operations and limitations.

OpSpec Part C, http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=3533925D7D88521A862575BC004A9718 also does not address the need or requirement for a SIC, and covers airplane terminal instrument procedures and airport authorizations and limitations.

OpSpec Parts D & E cover maintenance, don't address the requirement for a SIC, and are found at http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=C2DC053FA277F067862573B400584BAD

OpSpec Part H is helicopoters, doesn't help any of your cases, and is almost certainly something you've never seen or are likely to see. You may view it, however, at http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=9AC856D30F5E17DD8525734F00766591

Given that relief to your indictment isn't found in any of the listed OpSpec Parts from A to H, you're going to have to turn back to your appeal to 61.51(f) and 135.99 in your quest to establish the much-touted "legal justification" for your SIC.

Whereas you've established and admitted that the so-called "intern" is not an employee, and have declared that you're instead not charging the victim as an employee but instead selling flight time, we're stuck with the question as to how the victim may log this flight time. Not in accordance with 61.51(f), we've seen...which is the regulation that governs the logging of flight time, and not in accordance with 135 either...which doesn't authorize the logging of flight time at all.

Wherein, then, is the "legal justification," as you've often called it, for logging this time, and for selling a prospective non-employee a seat. You sell it under the guise that the employee may "build" and log this time...but haven't a leg to stand upon when it comes to the logging of the time you sell. If the non-employee is told he may log this time but cannot legally do so, you have defrauded the individual who has paid you the money, falsely advertised, and not met your public and private duties in your contract. You have established a contract by taking the money in exchange for the logging of flight time, and have therefore committed a crime.

Can you explain yourself? Do try to provide citations and references. Be specific. Correct, relevant ones this time. If you can't, then it would seem your goose is cooked, wouldn't it?

 

[JAFI]

they can have all the sic's they want. Provided they have a published training manual for that. They can fill every plane with an SIC.

Then they would be called passengers, but isn't the question here about a all cargo operation?? Plus how can you have a second in command in an aircraft that doesn't need/require/or is authorized for a SIC. Using your logic then we could put a Flight Engineer and a Navigator on a BE99.

But they can't log it.

I will buy that statement

And im not looking anything up..im retired.

I bow to your experience, but don't you now have the time to look up your reference to justify your position in the discussion?


If their ops spec say they need an SIC then that is governing rule. If it don't, then they have to go by the operation or the plane. Neither of which require an SIC. So the SIC cant log it.

OK, which OP Spec "allows" a SIC on an aircraft that doesn't require an SIC? And again I agree, they can't log it. If you are not a flight crewmember (in this cargo operation) then you are a passenger. And I will say a few exceptions such as guard, animal handler, load master, or what ever the company calls their position, - etc.

Ive said it many times already. If you dont get it then you need to re-read the regulations or PM and ill explain it for you.

All I am asking for is the OP Spec reference that you say allows "they can have all the SIC's they want". If this is a discussion, why would a PM be better than posting for all to see?

 

[Paradoxus]

FI comedy gold. I haven't laughed to the point of inducing splitting pain in a good long while.

 

[brokeflyer]

FI comedy gold. I haven't laughed to the point of inducing splitting pain in a good long while.

you got that one right.....im having trouble breathing because im laughing so hard.

I just dont understand how they "don't get it"

 

[time builder]

Avbug, you know why I don't give you the ops specs, it's company info and it's not worth it to violate my company policy to put it on the internet. Same goes for how they work things legally to consider the FOs employees, I've said enough in general terms, it's not worth it to go any further. If you're going to use that against me, what can I say other than it's either it's a cheap shot.

You keep dancing around the point on 135.267. If you're single pilot you have to live with the 8 hour limitation, if you want to go to 10, you have to have an FO, and 135.267 doesn't say anything other than that the FO has to be qualified under part 135 for the operation being conducted. If an operator wants to go to 10 hours, the FO is indeed required for the operation being conducted.

It's about limitations and requirements. A passenger BE99 doesn't have to list how many pilots they need, they just list info about it's operation as a passenger plane, and that it's under 19 passengers. Part 135 is what tells them when they need the SIC, not the ops specs. If they want to operate without an FO, they have to leave the seating configuration under 10 seats and stay VFR, or use an approved autopilot. If they want the captain to fly 10 hours in 24 however, there's no relief for the FO requirement. Again, it's all in part 135. If they have a limitation that's relieved by the ops specs under two crew, obviously they have to have the FO on for that also.

For cargo, they can usually do it all single pilot, part 135 but have to live with the limitations if they do so (ie. 8 hour flight time, and they can't use the two crew ops specs). Again, if you want to relieve the limitations, you have to comply with the requirements, and the requirement we're talking about is the FO.

 

[avbug]

Avbug, you know why I don't give you the ops specs, it's company info and it's not worth it to violate my company policy to put it on the internet. Same goes for how they work things legally to consider the FOs employees, I've said enough in general terms, it's not worth it to go any further. If you're going to use that against me, what can I say other than it's either it's a cheap shot.

It's not a cheap shot at all. Operations Specifications are a public document, along with the operating certificate. You're copping out of the only thread from which you've dangled this far, and have completely destroyed any shred of credibility you might have hoped to sustain.

You can't even cite the OpSpec number (eg A005, etc). It really doesn't matter, because we've already examined the operations specifications (all of them, as provided by FSIMS), and there is no grounds to cover you. In other words, you're already been debunked.

Did you not comprehend this...or did you fail to understand that, too?

Part 135 is what tells them what minimum crew is (when they need an FO and if they were over 19 seats, an FA), not the ops specs.

Precisely. Your operations specifications contain nothing that will support you.

Unfortunately for you, as we've detailed Part 135 and Part 61 with all relevant specifics, part 135 does nothing for you, either. Nor for the original poster. The minimum crew is 1 in the BE99 in freight configuration.

If they want to operate without an FO, they have to leave the seating configuration under 10 seats and stay VFR, or use an approved autopilot.

Irrelevant to freight operations, and no requirement exists to remain VFR without a SIC for freight. IFR is authorized, with or without the autopilot. Whereas no SIC is required in the BE99, and it's a freight operation (not a passenger operation), we've already covered in detail why neither exemption or OpSpec is required for an autopilot in lieu of SIC...because the SIC isn't required at all. Again, you'd know this if you'd been able to understand the previous highly detailed replies. The common thread here is your comprehension problem.

Again, if you want to relieve the limitations, you have to comply with the requirements, and the requirement we're talking about is the FO.

You've tried very hard to show that your sodomy victims aren't employees. Are you now trying to say that they are?

We've shown by legal definition that they can't be employees, of course. Best you don't go trying to change mid-stream, again.

You keep dancing around the point on 135.267. If you're single pilot you have to live with the 8 hour limitation, if you want to go to 10, you have to have an FO, and 135.267 doesn't say anything other than that the FO has to be qualified under part 135 for the operation being conducted. If an operator wants to go to 10 hours, the FO is indeed required for the operation being conducted.

135.267 provides restrictions and limitations on services that pilots employed under 135 can provide.

Your sodomy victims aren't employed.

135.267 does not provide any authorization. It provides limitations.

135.267 does not constitute a requirement for a SIC. The minimum crew and the requirements thereof are spelled out in 135.99, as you would know, were you able to understand the previous posts. It was all spelled out for you with links and citations...but unfortunately for you apparently wasn't put in language childish enough for you to grasp.

As was clearly explained to you, a 135 operator may indeed use a SIC if a training and drug program has been established for them. Right now you face a dilema, however, which you've been unable to address, and refuse to make any attempt to do so.

You've stated for the record that these victims are not employees. After all, they pay your firm, they don't get paid, and they have no obligation to show up at any time. We've seen for ourselves that by legal definition, they can't be considered employees. Instead, you've tried to tell us that these are paying for flight hours. Indeed, the Freight Runners site spells out exactly what their victims are paying per flight hour, in 100 hour blocks. But here's the rub (again):

They can't log it.

You're selling a service you can't provide. This has been very carefully explained to you, one subparagraph at a time. Whereas you're falsely selling a service which is not legal, you're committing fraud, and are complicit in a criminal act.

This really would be a good time for you to shut up. What a crying shame it would be should one of your victims read this thread and realize that it contains enough evidence, kindly provided by you and 8inman, to bring a lawsuit against both your companies...as well as the step by step directions to do it. Worse for you, you've opened yourself up to both civil and criminal prosecution. You have a constitutional right to remain silent, as you may know. Now would be a really good occasion to practice shutting up.

 

[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.