Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[time builder]

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.

 

[avbug]

You couldn't respond to the legal justification of 135.267 and ops specs, so you turn back to your logic and morality arguments.

How long have you suffered from this comprehension problem? Or can you simply not read? Do you always respond ignorantly, and are you always this wrong?

You attempted to justify your filth previously on the grounds of duty times, and I did address it, at length. You simply failed to comprehend. Again. There's a clear pattern with respect to your fail to grasp, clearly.

Whereas you've stated, and been QUOTED repeatedly saying that you never rely upon the so-called "interns" (the ones that can't be relied upon, and don't meet the definition of interns, incidentally), that they're not obligated to take a flight, you certainly can't say that they're force multipliers used to meet the 10 hour requirements for a 2-crew aircraft. Why, they don't even have an obligation to show up, and can refuse to do anything at any time...including flying with a pilot they don't like. You've stressed this over and over again.

Accordingly, you can't really justify them as filling a need to meet the 10 hour flight time limitation spelled out in 135.267. You can't even schedule them to fly, because you've cited 135.267, which is unscheduled crews...unless you've attempted to cite the wrong regulation (again).

Whereas this has already been addressed at length, and you've either ignored it or failed to comprehend it, there's little point in addressing it with you again. Clearly, given previous comments on the subject, you've been discredited...there's no need to do it again. When you learn to read and comprehend and when your understanding is able to exceed that of a third grade child, by all means pick up that argument again, and we'll explore it.

You've failed to cite your operations specifications again...just as you've winged and whined about regulation thus far but been unable to cite it. Invoking the entire subsection, incidentally, does nothing to establish your case. Be specific. Of course, you've been asked for specifics over and over and have been 100% unable to answer any question or provide any evidence for your case beyond justifying your sodomy after the fact ("they go on to get good jobs"). No surprises here.

Your dirty, and you can't escape the fact.

You switch to the ops specs (their lack therof) as your primary objection to legal legitimacy, yet you provide no regulatory justification for your legal objection to them taking advantage of 135.267. I mean really, if a passenger operation wants to get 10 flight hours in 24 out of their captains, they can by putting an FO on board. What makes you think Frieght Runners can't? And leave your morality police badge on the table, let's just talk legally. Brokeflyer continues to assert it's illegal also, yet his best argument thus far is that he "used to be an inspector." Even if he were current, there's still inspectors who disagree with him and leave the programs alone.

Brokeflyer has made that assertion before, but his lack of understanding of the regulation clearly discredited him a long time ago, which is why he's on my ignore list.

I didn't object to the original posters lack of operations specifications. I quoted the original poster when he stated that he has no operations specifications authorizing a second in command...I did this when you stated specifically that the original poster had never said any such thing. I did it specifically to show that you were wrong, as you've been all along, and that you had once again failed to properly read and comprehend. It's been an ongoing trend for you. That you keep getting slapped down, that you keep embarrassing yourself, and that you keep coming back for more speaks more to stupidity than anything else...but until you stop coming back or until I get tired of it, you'lll keep getting slapped down again. Your failure to comprehend makes it an easy task.

If a passenger operation wants 10 hours, you say? This isn't a passenger operation. Do try to focus, won't you? Try to stay on track.

I provide no regulatory justification? I presented that previously, and afte failing to comprehend what was written, you simply thanked me for providing the discussion...then failed to answer any of the questions or address what was said. Given your failure to comprehend again, perhaps we should wait for you to play catch-up, before giving any credence to your mindless request. Asked and answered, you see.

As far as inspectors reading your thread, I do know of at least one genuine inspector who's been following quite closely, and has commented...and who isn't very impressed with you, or the original poster.

Now, I don't know if it's you, or the original poster who is Freight Runner's Express. You've invoked the name, so we'll address that company. The original poster stated that the money paid was for flight time, which is not a "PFT" program. Paying for training is one matter, but paying for one's job is entirely another.

The Freight Runner's program is both...one buys the training, then buys the job, making is doubly vile. They call it an "intern" program, though it fails to meet the definition of an intern program, and therefore is not an intern program. What they elect to call it, of course, is irrelevant.

http://www.freightrunners.com/intern/

Three thousand dollars to get hired, they charge. Three thousand for the job, and to get through the 135 checkride as SIC. Just to be clear, that's three thousand dollars to get a SIC checkout in a single pilot airplane. One more time, three thousand dollars to get a qualification in an aircraft which doesn't require them, to become second in command of an aircraft for which there is no second in command.

Then, to fly the first 100 hours for the company, the "intern" pays five thousand dollars. You've invoked 135.267, asserting that the crewmember is required in order to fly 10 hours. You don't know this for a fact, of course, and it's rather doubtful that they get used in this manner...especially considering you've already asserted that the "intern" has no obligation to take a flight, stay with a flight, conduct a flight, or even fly with a given captain...and therefore cannot be relied upon to take any flight or fulfill any need with in the company at any given time. Never the less, aside from your consistency in preaching the big lie, you've still asserted that the "intern" is required to fulfill a second crewmember role in order to fly 10 hours. If this is indeed the case, then you've also stipulated to the fact that the crewmember is NOT simply buying time to log, but is paying to be a required crewmember instead...paying to do a job in the airplane...a point you've tried to get away from unsuccessfully repeatedly now. You can't have it both ways.

Either the person in that seat is simply paying to log a few hours, and has no obligations of any kind, or they're a required crewmember, an employee who isn't really employed, who is paying the employer, but can't be relied upon at any time and who really has no obligation to show up...completely negating their value as an employee and nullifying their status as a crewmember in the first place. You want it both ways, but can't have it...and neither way actually works.

We need to "level the playing field" for those who can't afford it.

Whatever you say.

When I see a resume from an individual who has put in a year at a given employer, I know that the individual has competed for the job, been evaluated, been interviewed, then been through a training program in which he or she was tested, evaluated, observed, and examined. I know this person was able to go out on the line, do their job, and has a record following them which covers their evaluation. I know that this person had to demonstrate themselves to a known standard, and has proven that they're better for the job than others around them.

In the case of programs such as yours and "Freight Runners" (if that's other than yours), we don't see this. We see an applicant who's skill level consisted of being able to buy the job. Was he the best at what he did? No. He simply bought it. Was he the the most experienced? Didn't have to be. He just bought it. Was he the most efficient, most skilled, most apt? No. he just bought it. And then upon obtaining his qualification, did he prove himself on the line? No. He just bough the time. Was he placed in a position of making hard decisions, evaluating go-no go situations, flying with diverse personalities on the line and gaining the valuable experience that comes with such operating circumstances? No. Not really. He simply flew when he wanted to, with whom he chose, and eventually left because he ran out of money.

 

[avbug]

Sir, Can you tell me how you came to be selected for the job with Freight Runner's Express?
I kinda got hired.

Ah, very good. What made you more qualified than every other applicant for the position?
I could pay for it.

You paid for the position? I see. Perhaps some token amount, then?
No, I paid three thousand dollars.

Toward a type rating, then?
No, toward a SIC checkout in a BE-99.

That's not very impressive.
It's all I could afford.

I confused, then. Did you get hired, or did they hire you?
I don't understand.

Clearly. When you get hired, someone pays you. But you weren't actually hired, then? You paid them?
Yes, I paid them.

I see. You understand that we don't accept money for jobs here, but we pay our employees. Are you sure you're in the right place?
Yes, I want to get paid to fly.

But this hasn't always been the case, has it?
No, I just paid there in the hopes of finding a better job.

Very well. We like to hire the best man for the job, however, and it seems that your experience doesn't show you've proven that.
What do you mean?

Well, you proved not that you were the best for the job, but that you could buy the job. We feel our clients deserve the best man for the job.
I am the best man for the job. I didn't just get a job at Freight Runners. I flew for them, too.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. It says here on your resume that you flew for them for eight months, and about 300 hours.
Yes, sir. I did.

Why did you leave that job?
I ran out of money.

You mean they weren't paying you enough?
No, I couldn't pay them any more.

Wait a minute. You were paying them while you were working for them as a pilot?
Yes. I paid them just over sixteen thousand dollars.

You paid them, and you didn't even come away with pilot in command time, right?
Yes, but it was all I could afford.

Judgement is very important to us as an employer. We're not really paying you to fly the airplane so much as we're paying you for your judgement. You understand this, right?
Sure, I understand, but what's that got to do with me?

Frankly, son, I really have to wonder about someone who would pay sixteen grand for a few hundred hours of second in command time in a single pilot airplane.
I got a lot of good experience.

Did you have a regular schedule?
No, that was the great thing. I could choose when I showed up for work and who I flew with, and didn't have to do anything I didn't want to do.

We don't work that way. You show up or you get fired, you fly with whom you're assigned, and we have a tight schedule upon which our client depends.
What if I don't like the guy I'm assigned to fly with?

You can't buy another crewmember, if that's what you're asking.
No, I'm out of money, so I just want a paying job.

Why didn't Freight Runners take you on as a captain? You said you'd flown for eight months.
I couldn't pay to be there any more, and they needed to fill the seat with someone else who could.

I see. But why not a captain? Didn't they consider your three hundred hours of experience as worthy of an upgrade?
No, not really, because it was just time I bought to pad my logbook.

Now that you're here, interviewing for this job, I have to ask you why you felt like you had to pay to get a job, rather than compete like everyone else?
I felt like it would give me a head-start.

You felt like having three hundred hours of SIC time in a single pilot airplane that you bought and paid for would make you a better candidate than others who have proven themselves by showing that they're the best man for the job?
I was hoping to bypass all that and move to the front of the line.

Well, you're here now. Interviewing for a job. Do any of these questions, or your answers, bother you at all? Just a little?
No, not really.

Here's the question I ask all my applicants. What makes you the best man for the job?
Well, sir, I believe in working hard, and I have studied hard, and I can provide excellent references.

That's good. But by working hard you said at your last job, the one you bought and paid for, you showed up when you felt like it?
Yes sir, but I showed up a lot.

Okay, and you have excellent references. Not from Freight Runners, are they?
Yes, they are. Some upstanding individuals.

These are the upstanding individuals who took money from you to work for them? I'm afraid we can't accept them as references.
Why not?

Because what they did was considered wrong, in this business. What you did is considered wrong, too. Still, we feel we shoudl give you every chance to present yourself.
I appreciate that.

Here's the thing. We work long days, and we fly 2 crew members in order to get the full 10 hours of duty.
That's what we did at Freight Runners, too!

Terriffic. You understand that you'll be flying 10 hours every day?
Every day? Do I always have to go 10 hours?

Why?
Well, I kind of liked it when I could choose not to fly that much. That's a lot of flying.

It is, and it's why we pay you, and you don't pay us. We pay by the day and by the flight hour.
Wait a minute. You pay by the flight hour?

Yes, we do.
Seriously?

Yes. Our client pays us well to take a product from A to B, and we pay you well to do it?
That's so cool. I mean, getting paid by the hour. I don't have to pay by the hour anymore?

Not if we hire you, no. Why should we hire you?
Because I want the job?

I'm afraid that's not a good enough reason.
Oh.

Let's move on, shall we? You said you studied hard?
Yes, sir. I did.

Good. We need you to leave Whatahonkie at 0400 and fly to Gurnsburg, four hours away. You have six hours of fuel. Weather on departure is a half mile and the destination is two hundred a mile. What do you require for this trip?
I think I need a good coat.

Is there anything else?
Yes, I probably need to bring a sandwhich, and a good book.

What do you require in order to takeoff?
The captain will have to decide if we can go.

I want you to decide if we can go.
Are you hiring me to be the captain?

No, I don't think that would be wise. I do need to know that you can make a safe decision, however. What's required in order to take off?
Permission from the company?

No.
Permission from the tower?

No. I'm driving at a takeoff alternate.
We're taking off from a different airport?

No, same one. The takeoff alternate is somewhere you'll go if the weather is below a certain number.
What number is that?

That's what I'm asking you.
Oh. How about 200?

Two hundred what?
Feet?

You really have no idea where I'm going with this, have you?
No, I didn't have to make those kind of decisions at Freight Runners.

Evidently not. Brief the takeoff for me.
We're going to takeoff and turn left.

Ah, a little more detail. Tell me about the speed.
We're going to go fast.

How fast?
About a hundred eighty knots.

What about on the runway?
We're going to accelerate to 180 knots.

Let me be more specific. At 79 knots you hear a bang and feel a shudder and I call out a loss of oil pressure on the left engine. What are you going to do?
Your airplane!

That's exactly the wrong answer. I really only want two things from you so far as memory in the airplane. If you know nothing else, I need to know that you can reject a takeoff, and I need to know that you know what to do in the event of a pressure loss.
Oh.

You reject the takeoff. How are you going to do that?
Throttles idle and lots of brake.

What about reverse?
Yeah, I could use that.

Let's switch gears for a moment. We're at FL410, cruising along fat, dumb, and happy. You hear a bang. You see a mist. Everything frost over. Your ears and teeth hurt, and your sinus hurts. You feel light headed, and there's a big rush of air. It's hard to breath. What do you do?
I don't understand what's happening.

How long do you have to do something?
I don't know.

I see here you've taken your ATP written. It's on the test. What's your time of useful consciousness at FL410?
I don't know. A minute or two?

You've just killed us both. I didn't get my oxygen mask on fast enough, and my only hope was for you to get your mask on and perform an emergency descent. I passed out, and you took long enough recognizing the emergency that you did, too.
Dang, I should have known that one.

I ask again, we're flying at FL410 and hear a bang. The cockpit mists, there's a rush of air, we feel lightheaded, your head hurts. It's really cold. What do you do?
I'm not sure. Is this time different than the last one? I'm still not sure what you want from me.

You've just killed us both, again.
I didn't really do that. The airplane did that.

Thank you for coming in today,and best of luck somewhere else.
Uh, thanks.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Have you actually talked to management at most airlines? Your hypothetical employee is a wet dream for them.

 

[avbug]

The requirements for ops specs are 119.49 for anyone else following along following this discussion.

Very, very irrelevant to the discussion. Why did you bring that up?

Seeing as you did, however, the operations specifications apply to the operator with the same duties and demands as the Code of Federal Regulations, and are required under Part 135.

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).

Your "premise" is deeply flawed, and therefore, wrong.

You're aware that "119.49(11)" isn't a citation of regulation, and is a nonsensical number, right? Apparently not. 119.49 identifies the contents of operations specifications, incidentally. The OpSpecs are spelled out in FSIMS Volume 3. Are you not familiar with this reference?

You've already invoked 135.267, and now you cite duty time...but you're apparently not aware that a second in command has no impact on duty time under that part, and more importantly, the regulation spells out flight time...not duty time. There's no duty time limitation under that subpart...just a rest limitation. Do you not know this, also?

You're consistently wrong, and it's the only thing you consistently do...is be wrong.

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.

Oh, look! You're wrong again. You thought you'd mention it, even though it doesn't apply, and you're wrong, to boot! You're batting a thousand, aren't you?

Fog seeding legally requires two pilots? You're sure about that? Do you know what the justification is for two pilots for the purposes of meeting the requirements of 14 CFR 61.51, and logging the flight time from that flight?

 

[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.