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?