Part 135 First Officer Intern Wanted

[brokeflyer]

What page would that be on?




A015 gives the authority to use an autopilot in lieu of SIC. Why would the FAA need to specify that an SIC is required? All they would need to do is not issue this authorization and the SIC would be required by default.

yes, but if you have a autopilot, or fly freight, they need to ADD that a SIC is required otherwise you cant use the autopilot, because the autopilot is a required part of the checkride. unless one isnt installed.

 

[brokeflyer]

Again, any examples of the FAA stopping this anywhere, or violating a pilot for logging this type of time?

The FAA certainly knows that this happens.

yes, I know one of my co-workers a few years ago nailed a guy for his log book during a type ride in a lear.

This joker "claimed" to have 1200 hours "sic" in a king air. Problem was after blowing the check ride and further diggin, he was doing exactly what this place is doing.

 

[avbug]

Could anyone please cite the Operations Specifications page that would cover this issue?

I already devoted a post to the OpSpecs, demonstrating that a SIC is not required in the case in question. Neither is a provision available in the OpSpecs to require the SIC. It's not an issue for the Operations Specifications.

The operations in question may very well have an approved SIC program. The regulation does not need to require a SIC or order to obtain approval for a training program, and use a SIC. However, the question isn't whether the operation can have a SIC on board. The question is whether the SIC can log the time. As we've seen in more than enough detail, 14 CFR 61.51 has no provision to enable one engaged in the operations in question to log the flight time as SIC.

The SIC may be legally trained and may legally operate in the aircraft (though as the defenders of the practice have already noted...they're not employees, but individuals buying flight time for the purposes of logging hours)...but can't log the time. The problem here is that the programs are expressly developed and sold, and advertised, for the purposes of logging flight time. Freightrunners Express, as advertised by the original poster, is selling a service it cannot legally provide. The sum at which they are selling this service makes it not only fraudulent, but a felony.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

What about my prior employer? I got a SIC checkout in our aircraft, none of which required an SIC. We would then do online training for a week or so and then take our PIC checkout. This company also had SIC's who would pay for training. You are saying I can not log the time as an SIC in that aircraft? Even if the Ops Specs have approved of this program? I have an FAA guy on here who thinks I possibly could have been an illegal passenger and then at points carried illegal passengers? All under the oversight of the local FAA examiners and FSDO? Come on guys. Are you all serious? You guys really need to find a hobby.

 

[avbug]

Again, anyone can use an SIC under 135, if they have an approved training program.

The particulars of your question have been spelled out, over and over, throughout the length of this thread, and reading them first would probably be a better choice than repeating the same answered questions over and over.

The regulation, and the operations specifications covering the answer to your question has been provided line by line.

You failed to cite the kind of operation applicable to your operation. If you were in an all cargo operation lacking a requirement for a SIC under Part 135 (the opspecs don't require a SIC for an all cargo operation, as previously explained)...the no, you had no grounds to log the time. If you were a passenger operation, then yes, you did, depending on the authorizations extended your operation, and the type and scope of the operation itself. Again, all previously explained.

Then again, you're not really asking a question, are you? You're arguing a point you don't understand. Go back and read the thread, digest it a little, and you might learn something.

This company also had SIC's who would pay for training.

That would put you in the same pathetic society as 8inman and time builder, then.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Oh yea, well you are ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

 

[livin'thesim]

yes, I know one of my co-workers a few years ago nailed a guy for his log book during a type ride in a lear.

This joker "claimed" to have 1200 hours "sic" in a king air. Problem was after blowing the check ride and further diggin, he was doing exactly what this place is doing.

I guess what I meant was does anyone know of the FAA busting anyone on this type of logged time. Was the guy FAA?

 

[livin'thesim]

I already devoted a post to the OpSpecs, demonstrating that a SIC is not required in the case in question. Neither is a provision available in the OpSpecs to require the SIC. It's not an issue for the Operations Specifications.

That was the point I was hinting at. Lots of pilots throw the term "ops specs" around when they mean are actually referring the company's policies that are stated in the company-developed portion of the manual required by 135.

Just a pet peeve of mine, I guess.

I friend of mine worked for a single-pilot operator who added a light twin. The faa REQUIRED them, per section A of their ops specs, to have an SIC in a c310. They were a new operator and this was a safety issue. Otherwise they wouldn't have an sic.

I'm really curious what the text looks like that brokeflyer is referring to, and what page it would be located on.

 

[brokeflyer]

I guess what I meant was does anyone know of the FAA busting anyone on this type of logged time. Was the guy FAA?

no, he was a line pilot for some 135 operator. My buddy was the faa guy that busted him.

They wern't able to account for the time he logged compared to the operation he was flying. He was riding right seat in a metro doing freight loggin it as SIC time which counts as total time, and currency etc.

it wasnt pretty.

 

[JAFI]

After reviewing the 135 regs, I agree In the discussion here that a SIC can be on a Cargo only BE99 if the following conditions are met: (in short – have an approved program for an EMPLOYEE, I’m not so sure about an Intern…..)


FAR 1: Crewmember means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.

135.85 Carriage of persons without compliance with the passenger-carrying provisions of this part.

The following persons may be carried aboard an aircraft without complying with the passenger-carrying requirements of this part:
(a) A crewmember or other employee of the certificate holder.



135.115 Manipulation of controls.

No pilot in command may allow any person to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight conducted under this part, nor may any person manipulate the controls during such flight unless that person is—
(a) A pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft;


135.95 Airmen: Limitations on use of services.

No certificate holder may use the services of any person as an airman unless the person performing those services—
(a) Holds an appropriate and current airman certificate; and
(b) Is qualified, under this chapter, for the operation for which the person is to be used.


135.245 Second in command qualifications.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), no certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as second in command of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating. For flight under IFR, that person must meet the recent instrument experience requirements of part 61 of this chapter.

135.63 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Each certificate holder shall keep at its principal business office or at other places approved by the Administrator, and shall make available for inspection by the Administrator the following—
(4) An individual record of each pilot used in operations under this part, including the following information:

-----

I did not dig much more. The term Employee kept popping up. No mention of Intern...When a "Intern" pays to be on the flight, that starts to smack of being a paying passenger not a crewmember. But I would have to call Legal on that.

 

[brokeflyer]

this is getting funny. Reminds me of giving flight checks and asking a tough question and watch them squirm.

It's funny at first but then you have to feel bad for the guy.

 

[bizjet800]

I think this topic has been beaten to China. I am out of popcorn so let's give it up move on! Very entertaining I might add!!!

 

[avbug]

JAFI,

They can use a SIC legally. That's not in question, and has been addressed repeatedly.

Where the problem occurs here is that they're selling flight time that can't be logged in accordance with the regulation.

 

[livin'thesim]

Did anyone cover the issue of logging as sole manipulator on legs flow by the "SIC"?

Problem is, that is a provision for logging PIC, which is even more suspect (assume a non type rating aircraft).

Also, did FAA legal ever issue an interp about this particular issue?

Brokeflyer: Did the guy get violated?

 

[avbug]

Logging PIC while sole manipulator on legs operated in accordance with Part 91 only? Yes, legal...but again, that's not the way this program is sold, and to explain to future employers that one has bought a job as SIC and logged PIC when one wasn't even entitled to log SIC under the provisions of the regulation is somewhat of a stretch.