Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[152hvy]

I'm not current on this side of the REGS, but my understanding on logging PIC or SIC (Part 135 rules) is that you have to be COMPANY TRAINED, FLIGHT CHECKED and "REQUIRED by FAA Regulations"
Under Part 91 is a different story, you can't log SIC but you can log some little PIC if the PIC (designated) allows you to be the "sole manipulator of the control"...... how often is a box hauler ever on Part 91 LEG?

 

[152hvy]

I was in CWA for almost 2 yrs, met a couple of cool Freight Runner dudes...they could sure need some extra pair of hands loading/unloading, especially during those 6 months winter season...

 

[8inMan]

Like I said before, you guys are certainly entitled to your own opinions and I respect that. It is my understanding that the interns are given training and check rides as an SIC and can log SIC time. Our ops don't require an SIC, but that doesn't mean you can't log it. For example, some jets are certified single-pilot as well, but most of the time they are flown with two pilots both logging it. If you spent the same amount of money on buying time in a seminole, you wouldn't get the same type of real world experience that you get flying the line.

 

[Donsa320]

Free room

If anyone is considering this operation I can offer a free room and bath About 20 minutes from the airport but a car would be needed.

Retired NWA Capt and I'd enjoy the company.

PM me for contact number.

 

[time builder]

Yes, but this is cargo, isn't it? It says "daily scheduled cargo flights" So 135 regs don't require 2 pilots on cargo as far as I remember. And it's a single-pilot type. So if the ops specs don't require it, and the regs don't require it (my understanding), there is no SIC time.

Admittedly I don't remember/know what the passenger carrying requirements are. So I could be wrong about that, but this is clearly cargo.

Either way, it's filthy. As an operator, you don't need the SIC, the airplane's going flying any way. Let a young guy ride along and help with the loading/unloading, filing, etc. He can be helpful and won't cost you a dime. Win/WIn.

For passengers, it's required for a plane with a configuration of 10 or more pax, the BE99 can be configured for 15.

As far as cargo goes, no operator is going to schedule a captain for more than 8 hours flight time (in 24) without a hired and paid FO. The FO is required for a 10 hour day. In this case, having the "intern" FO opens up the opportunity for a captain to accept an extra leg or two that wasn't previously scheduled.

Also, in order to have ops specs for a low visability takeoff (1200 RVR or 1/4 mile) you need an FO.

In either case, it's not enough of an incentive for most 135 operators to go out and hire an FO, but does justify their presence in the plane in the case of time building programs.

In the end it's the FED's and your future employers that you have to convince that it's valid. I'd be more concerned with the latter. I've heard about FO's going into interviews and being asked if it's legal. It's more a question to see if you know your regs and can defend it, than if it's actually legitimate. If they like you they'll accept it. If they don't, they'll use it against you.

I'm sure the same thing could be said about safety pilot time.

 

[time builder]

$13500 could buy a good bit of time in a light twin that you could fly all buy your self.
PFT= donating everyone elses wages to a black hole you Piece of $hit!!

Right, about 70 hours if you split time in a seminole. If you think that's going to count more in an interview than 200 hours SIC in a BE99, I'll respect your opinion, but disagree.

What I don't respect is your profane name calling in an attempt to silence an opposing view.

 

[JAFI]

LMFAO - - First Officer Intern??????? You have got to be flame bait.

Why don't you offer they sit in the right seat of an 18 wheeler playing MFS for half the price????

Sitting in the right seat is invaluable. - - Paying some one for the right to FLY ALONG should be illegal.

 

[time builder]

My bad on the math, it's not letting me edit. More like just over a hundred split hours on the seminole. My argument still stands.

 

[svcta]

Yes,but your argument is moot because the time in the BE99 in this case isn't legit because a SIC is not required.

That's a big risk to take hoping that no one chooses to call you out for it in the future.


I had two friends that did this. one logged SIC jet time in a citation under part 91 (single-pilot operation) and the other in a king air 350, part 91, as well.

One doesn't fly anymore and the other went is out there somewhere flying his heart out, but I'm determined that a bunch of his time is merely pen time.

 

[time builder]

Yes,but your argument is moot because the time in the BE99 in this case isn't legit because a SIC is not required.

That's a big risk to take hoping that no one chooses to call you out for it in the future.


I had two friends that did this. one logged SIC jet time in a citation under part 91 (single-pilot operation) and the other in a king air 350, part 91, as well.

One doesn't fly anymore and the other went is out there somewhere flying his heart out, but I'm determined that a bunch of his time is merely pen time.

You're giving me two part 91 examples to show me that a part 135 checked FO (at a company with FAA approved ops specs requiring the FO) is not legitimate?

As far as the king air 350 goes, I agree, I flew a little bit as a king air 200 FO, but couldn't justify logging the time, so I didn't. I can, however, see clearly in my company ops specs how my BE99 FO is justified.

 

[time builder]

LMFAO - - First Officer Intern??????? You have got to be flame bait.

Why don't you offer they sit in the right seat of an 18 wheeler playing MFS for half the price????

Sitting in the right seat is invaluable. - - Paying some one for the right to FLY ALONG should be illegal.

If I might add a little playful sarcasm, my 4000 hours as captain of an Orbit airlines 737-400 has been incredibly useful on my resume.

As far as the other comment goes, it might help to know a little about the history of the programs. It started out as a third parties petitioning companies like mine for time in the right seat (at AMF it still is).

The fact of the matter is that these companies wouldn't want FOs if they weren't compensated for them. Honestly, most of them are more of a liability than an asset in the cockpit. When they do get up to speed and become an asset in the cockpit, most of them ditch us for the first airline job they can find.

 

[svcta]

You're giving me two part 91 examples to show me that a part 135 checked FO (at a company with FAA approved ops specs requiring the FO) is not legitimate?

As far as the king air 350 goes, I agree, I flew a little bit as a king air 200 FO, but couldn't justify logging the time, so I didn't. I can, however, see clearly in my company ops specs how my BE99 FO is justified.

Yes, I did give two part 91 examples. But we have assumed until now that the company in question doesn't have specs requiring an FO. Are we wrong?

If so, it's even more slimy.

 

[brokeflyer]

i really doubt this crap operation has ops specs requireing a SIC....otherwise they wouldnt be "charging" for that position. they would just hire one.

The plane dont need an SIC, the regs dont and the type of operation dont. Therefore, the butt-raped sic here can't even "legally" log the time. The so called checkride is useless. This place is mearly charging for flight time that they are already getting paid for.

Total BS.

 

[joe_pilot]

Central Air Southwest used to have a similar program. Their GOM was written to require only one pilot, but required an SIC only if and when an SIC was present.

Yes, you read that right.

Single pilot ops only unless an authorized SIC was in the plane, then the SIC was required!! WTF!?

I need whoever wrote that one to write a pre-nup for me: "Husband not allowed to sleep with other women unless another woman is in the bed, then he must sleep with her"

-JP

 

[time builder]

Yes, I did give two part 91 examples. But we have assumed until now that the company in question doesn't have specs requiring an FO. Are we wrong?

If so, it's even more slimy.

You've assumed. I know my company does with the same type of plane, therefore it's entirely possible they could/should take advantage of the opportunity if they haven't already.

Even still, like I posted earlier, this is part 135, and in order to fly 10 hours in a day, you need to have a dual crew. It's not like you can have a captain fly single pilot on an 8 hour day, and then suddenly add the FO for another 2, the FO needs to be there from the begining of the 24 hour period. Under part 91 there is no flight time regulation unless there's instructing involved.

Also you haven't addressed the validity of the 135 check ride. You can't legally touch the controls on a part 135 leg unless you've passed your checkride. If the FAA is going to make a stink about it, they need to do so when the 293 form hits their desk. If it's not legitmiate, they need to step in and tell them the checkride is invalid and the FO can't fly. To say this is a "slimy" situation would imply that the FAA doesn't know about it, I would strongly disagree.