Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[time builder]

You've got some good points, once again, avbug. The first job is often the hardest to get because all you have to show is the education/time you've paid for and your performance in an interview. Might help to have a good reference or two. After you get the first job, though, employers see that someone else has seen value in you, and your number of opportunities grows exponentially.

I'm not going to sidetrack into the fog seeding thing much more than I already have. I've never done it, but I know those who have use the FO as a means to get down to a 100 foot DH. My guess is that it's an LOA or some other unpublished document. If you take my inability to produce such a document as victory, bask in your glory, you've earned it.

The rest, what can I say? At this point, if I were to switch sides of the argument, the only thing I'd have to show for it is that avbug says you can't really call them employees anyway, and he's a really smart guy.

Come on avbug, really? You're one of the most well versed guys on the internet as far as regs go, and all you can give me to counter 135.267 is that these guys are unreliable? I never said my FOs were unreliable, you interpolated that. My point is that it's voluntary, and you would be up in arms if it were any other way. You've fabricated your own evidence once again.

You claim that I should be embarassed. IMHO it would be more embarassing if I were to try to uphold your side of this argument to my employer.

 

[avbug]

I'm not going to sidetrack into the fog seeding thing much more than I already have. I've never done it, but I know those who have use the FO as a means to get down to a 100 foot DH.

You've never done it and don't know anything about it, yet used it as an example. Brilliant.

I've done it (for several years), unlike you...and how does the SIC fit in there again? You introduced it, but aren't going to get side tracked by it? How does that work?

A 100' DH? No. Not DH. The DH didn't vary. We flew to 75' and then flew the localizer down the runway at 75'. But how is this relevant to freight runners, again? You introduce a lot of wrong information, and do it inappropriately, out of context and with complete irrelevancy to the subject at hand...which is buying one's job and paying to go to work. Do you do this simply because you can't intelligently address the matter at hand, or is it a weak effort at misdirection?

My guess is that it's an LOA or some other unpublished document.

You "guess," do you? Wrong references, guesses, irrelevant topics and information...and you guess it's in an unpublished document. You really have no idea, do you? Yet you introduced this in an effort to substantiate an incorrect point. Bad guesswork to support a wrong point. Perhaps you should refrain from posting until you do know what it is that you're talking about.

After you get the first job, though, employers see that someone else has seen value in you, and your number of opportunities grows exponentially.

Got it. The first job for your sodomy victims is the one they bought. Then, the next employer sees that someone else saw value in them...becuase they couldn't get hired anywhere except for not only buying a job, but paying the employer a ridiculous sum to give them a SIC signoff, then they paid the employer for every hour they "worked." This is how future employers see the "value" in the employee? Really? Why not simply give them a criminal history?

You claim that I should be embarassed. IMHO it would be more embarassing if I were to try to uphold your side of this argument to my employer.

It's no claim. You're simply too dense to be embarrassed. This should also embarrass you...but it doesn't. Very sad.

Yes, you would be embarrassed to present this discussion to your employer. Your co-rapists, and it would be embarrassing to call him a sodomizer too, wouldn't it? Whereas your employer is dirtier than you, and you only the proud dominatrix in your little backdoor affair, it's no wonder that your employer should feel that way. The guilty are seldom comfortable when a finger is pointed their way.

At this point, if I were to switch sides of the argument,

If you were to "switch sides of the argument" you still wouldn't know what you're talking about.

Like I said, it's no argument. You've been unable to present one. This is an indictment, and I'll keep banging your head against the rock until you either slink away, or I get bored.

What you do is dirty, and wrong. This won't change. You'll be dirty long after you leave this position, too.

You're one of the most well versed guys on the internet as far as regs go, and all you can give me to counter 135.267 is that these guys are unreliable?

Again, you really didn't read very well, did you? You did not. You didn't comprehend it at all, did you? Clearly not.

You've asserted that 135.267 contains duty limits. It does not. It contains rest limits.

You're asserting that a SIC is required in order to operate in excess of 8 hours of flying time, although thus far you've incorrectly cited the regulation, and cited the wrong one.

You believe that 135.267(b)(2) justifies a second crewmember, and that this is the basis by which a SIC may be added to a 135 certificate. Clearly you don't understand the regulation at all. 135.267 does not authorize a SIC: it places flight time limitations on crewmembers. This nuance may be beyond your comprehension, as you've thus far demostrated. The authorization for additional crewmembers is not found in 135.267. There's a little more to it that that. 135.267 does not provide a legal basis for adding crewmembers, for placing them on the certificate, for a 135.293 checkride, or an authorization to act in the capacity of second in command.

You've harped on and on about legal justification, yet cite the wrong regulations in support of yourself. These matters have already been addressed, and as stated before, perhaps not spelled out for you clearly enough in baby talk. You haven't understood what has already been provided you. Until you can digest what's been given, you really don't need any more to confuse you. It would appear that anything in excess of sesame-street-level language or explanation might be in excess of your capacity to understand. When you can keep up with the conversation, that would be a good time to jump back in and get beaten down some more. Okay?

I never said my FOs were unreliable, you interpolated that.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "interpolate?" I don't think you do.

Your first officers have no obligation to take a flight. They may fly when, and if they feel like it. Your first officers have no obligation to fly with a pilot if they don't want to. Your first officers get to choose when and where they fly, with no requirement to accept a flight, manipulate the controls, or operate with any given individual. Perhaps you call this a reliable arrangement, and perhaps you're deluded enough to see this as an employment relationship. Most employers (real employers, nor your kind) would scoff at this setup. "Employees" who have no obligation to do anything they don't wish to do...quite the desirable business model, there.

Of course, these aren't real employees...they're not getting paid. They're not real employees because they have no obligations or duties to the company. They're not real employees because the company has no claim on their services. They're paying hobbyists. You call this reliable? Remarkable.

Still you insist they're employees...

...the only thing I'd have to show for it is that avbug says you can't really call them employees anyway,...

Not avbug. Legally they're not employees.

How can they be an employee if they don't fit the definition?

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e009.htm

EMPLOYEE - A person who is hired by another person or business for a wage or fixed payment in exchange for personal services and who does not provide the services as part of an independent business; Any individual employed by an employer.

My point is that it's voluntary, and you would be up in arms if it were any other way.

You're choosing your definitions based on what I think? Why not speak the truth. Call a spade a spade. What you're doing is sleezy and improper whether you call them employees or not. Whether the sodomy victims consent, it's still sodomy, they're still taking it up the backside, and you're the one doing it. The original poster has crept away in shame...but you're still here, and still just as guilty. Having been stripped of your only defense, an improper citation of an irrelevant regulation, you're still just as guilty. Just too foolish to know it.

Let's face it. If your victims are obligated to perform duty, then you're really up a tree because you're requiring them to pay you to perform that duty. If they're not, then they're really not employees, and can't be called reliable employees by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, you want your cake, but can't really have it. Your cake is rotten. As are you.
​

 

[brokeflyer]

Ok, brokeflyer, expound. You're not refuting justification under part 135.267, so that leaves us with ops specs. Where does it say that you have to have it in your ops specs in order to fly with an SIC? The requirements for ops specs are 119.49 for anyone else following along following this discussion.

We all know OPS specs come after the FARs, or as required by them, therefore, my premise is that if your requirement/justification is under part 135 or any other regulation with precedent (duty time, pax/IFR, type requirements, etc.), there's no need to have it in the ops specs, unless those ops specs give you an exemption or deviation from the FARs when you have the FO present (ie, low vis takeoffs) 119.49(11).

Types of operation can provide a need for multiple pilots also (ie. fog seeding and instruction), doesn't apply here, but thought I'd mention it anyway.

Prove me wrong, educate me (I mean it, I know you're not after me and my operation, just the OP's). Show me where it's stated that you have to put this subject in the OPS SPECS when the justification is already in the FARs. If you can, I'll consider myself educated, and I'll leave Freight Runners to their own defense. If you can't show me, part 135.267 stands as justification alone until proven otherwise.

I don't mean to be confrontational or anything here, but if I'm going to use your argument for further reference, I'm going to need something besides your former credentials.

you dont quite understand the regulation. The ops specs probly dont say it anywhere unless the aircraft requires an SIC. OR, and here is the big IF, the FAA states in your ops specs that you need an SIC for an otherwise single pilot airplane. Which has happened. The discussion here isnt about 135 or ops specs. The point being, the operation dont require an SIC (freight) and the plane dont require an SIC. So therefor, the sic you pit in that plane can't legally log the time.

The regulations of part 91 are clear on that. The operation(ops specs) are for cargo only, no SIC required. And the plane (B99) dont require a SIC. So sic cant log it.

I can't really explain it any easier than that.

One more time, the operation and the plane dont require an SIC. You cant log time as an SIC unless you are a REQUIRED crew member.

What makes it bullsh1t is that company is charging people for flight time thay cant log. Imagine doing training at simulflight, but you cant count it for the type rating, only practice.

and dont take into accoutn too much of what avbug says, from the sounds of his idiot posts, he probly runs the same kinda operation. Not to bright but somehow got certificated.

 

[JAFI]

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

 

[WMUchickenhawk]

Yes, you would be embarrassed to present this discussion to your employer. Your co-rapists, and it would be embarrassing to call him a sodomizer too, wouldn't it? Whereas your employer is dirtier than you, and you only the proud dominatrix in your little backdoor affair, it's no wonder that your employer should feel that way. The guilty are seldom comfortable when a finger is pointed their way.

If there is a dominatrix involved this could be well worth the money.

 

[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.