Seat-dependent training/checking 135

[ClassG]

OK. I realize this will be required for a transport catagory aircraft, but who has experience with a small (Pilatus PC12) normal category, turbine-powered aircraft when utilizing a pilot crewmember as SIC?

The idea is to have both PIC/SIC (left/right seat) qualification as well as just SIC (right seat only) qualified crewmembers available for 135 flight. Who has been over this with the FAA? Will it require checking and testing both seats or not?

I'm guessing there must be a cargo operation or two out there using some SIC's in Caravans or something who can answer this question.

ClassG

 

[350DRIVER]

Who has been over this with the FAA? Will it require checking and testing both seats or not?

It would have to be written into the company's ops specs to require the sic to be onboard since the aircraft is type certificated for single pilot operations. Obviously, if the sic is required by the ops specs then he must go through a training course specified in the ops specs and a checkride. Speak to your POI, DO, and CP, they should be able to add and amend what is already in place. Many 135 departments use a gear slinger and radio player in the right seat in smaller aircraft. Some pax feel more "safe" or "reassured" with two warm bodies up front versus just one.

3 5 0

 

[transpac]

It would have to be written into the company's ops specs to require the sic to be onboard since the aircraft is type certificated for single pilot operations. Obviously, if the sic is required by the ops specs then he must go through a training course specified in the ops specs and a checkride.

This is the reverse of the actual requirements: FAR 135.101 requires a SIC for passenger flights under IFR. The operator may or may not hold an Op Spec that permits an autopilot to be substituted for the SIC. The key word here is "permits". Nothing in a standard Op Spec requires an operator to use an autopilot in lieu of a SIC, and the operator can continue to comply with 135.101 by assigning a qualified SIC to a flight.

It's interesting that the title of 135.101 mentions IFR conditions but the text of the regulation merely mentions IFR.

 

[350DRIVER]

This is the reverse of the actual requirements: FAR 135.101 requires a SIC for passenger flights under IFR. The operator may or may not hold an Op Spec that permits an autopilot to be substituted for the SIC. The key word here is "permits". Nothing in a standard Op Spec requires an operator to use an autopilot in lieu of a SIC, and the operator can continue to comply with 135.101 by assigning a qualified SIC to a flight.

It's interesting that the title of 135.101 mentions IFR conditions but the text of the regulation merely mentions IFR.

That is understandable but I was under the impression that the company in question did hold the autopilot authorization which would allow the flight to be conducted under single pilot operations. I am pretty sure since the aircraft is type certificated for single pilot ops that a second in command would not be able to "legally" log the flight time unless they were a required crew member which would be dictated by the ops specs. The key word in your response was "qualified" SIC to a flight, meaning he/she would have to be trained and checked out as a company pilot. AirNet and others have this done in a way which it is written into the ops specs and the sic's are put through all required training resulting in a "qualified" sic that may be assigned to flights. A "qualified" pilot outside of the company who holds the appropriate and required certificates and ratings cannot just jump in the right seat and log and act as sic of a plane operating under part 135 where the pilot flying is qualified to conduct the flight single pilot.

3 5 0

 

[transpac]

That is understandable but I was under the impression that the company in question did hold the autopilot authorization which would allow the flight to be conducted under single pilot operations.

If a SIC is assigned, it makes no difference whether or not the operator holds an autopilot authorization. It's much the same concept as holding a MEL but having no inoperative equipment during a particular flight. In other words, the authorization is permissive; it does not take anything away.

It's a given that the SIC must be trained and checked in accordance with the operator's SIC training program.

 

[cvsfly]

It would have to be written into the company's ops specs to require the sic to be onboard since the aircraft is type certificated for single pilot operations. Obviously, if the sic is required by the ops specs then he must go through a training course specified in the ops specs and a checkride. Speak to your POI, DO, and CP, they should be able to add and amend what is already in place. Many 135 departments use a gear slinger and radio player in the right seat in smaller aircraft. Some pax feel more "safe" or "reassured" with two warm bodies up front versus just one.

3 5 0

I've seen the arguements before. Specifically which Ops Spec is this written into? Axxx ? Our company started from a single pilot-in-command with a BE200 with SICs. We had A015 (autopiliot-in-lieu of SIC) and our approved PIC and SIC were listed in A007 (I believe - don't have a copy of it now). Now we are a Basic operator utilizing both PIC and SIC positions, it is listed in our training program and our POI has checked us and given his blessing on our operation for many years now. Our Ops Spec have no reference to any PIC or SIC anymore (just the management positions). Are we missing something? Are we not asking the right questions of our POI. Our checks tend to be fairly relaxed nowadays and occasionally we do manaeuvers from both seat positions to satisfy the PIC/SIC roles (293(a)1 & 8, 299 and 6 mo. 297 done in the aircraft with our POI). Flight Safety (our annual 293(a) 2-7, 297 done in level D sim) is always a little vague on the subject.

 

[350DRIVER]

cvs,

It was written into ours as is with other 135 operators. . I think your POI would probably be able to answer these questions more accurately and be able to specifically state how it would be written. I tend to disagree with transpac, it is written somewhere and "qualified" would mean being "company trained" and a "company pilot" not just someone holding the required certificates and ratings. It would make very little if any sense to buy into the notion that if two pilots are required per the ops specs (both pic/sic) then the flight can still be flown single pilot in equipment that is type certificated for single pilot operations given that the pic is part 135 single pilot qualified, current, and meets applicable regulations. The ops specs allows the company the freedom to either use the sic or be able to do operations under single pilot. I may be mistaken but I thought the original question was with regards to getting a sic to be a required crew member for XYZ operation. Once again, you can't just throw someone in that right seat under 135 and call them "qualified" because you may like him or think he is cute unless he has met the part 135 applicable regulations and has attended and passed company specific training.

3 5 0

 

[transpac]

Once again, you can't just throw someone in that right seat under 135 and call them "qualified" because you may like him or think he is cute unless he has met the part 135 applicable regulations and has attended and passed company specific training.

3 5 0

Don't believe that anyone has stated or implied that "qualified" means anything other than trained and checked in accordance with the relevant operator's FAA approved training program. If I've left this unclear, my apologies.

Once again, it's not Op Specs that requires two pilots, it's FAR 135.101. I get the impression that some believe that holding an autopilot authorization takes away a company's ability to assign a SIC to a flight (and for the SIC to log the flight time). This is incorrect. A qualified SIC enhances safety in IFR operations far more than an autopilot and operators are encouraged to train, check, and use SICs whenever feasable. However, to require a SIC in an airplane with limited seating would greatly limit its economic viability. Hence, the compromise of permitting an autopilot in lieu of a SIC in small airplanes, at the option of the operator.

 

[350DRIVER]

Once again, it's not Op Specs that requires two pilots, it's FAR 135.101.

Correct, but the ops specs should also have documentation and sections in it regarding what the company can and cannot do.

A qualified SIC enhances safety in IFR operations far more than an autopilot and operators are encouraged to train, check, and use SICs whenever feasable.

This is not overly true in operations where the captain is qualified for single pilot part 135 operations. If anything I have seen guys in the right seat of a King Air and other airplanes that are type certificated for single pilot operations do more damage than anything else. You surely do not need a gear slinger in some types of equipment and it can throw the flows off of the guy in the left seat who was trained, tested, and is "qualified" to be flying the aircraft as single pilot, simple as that.

3 5 0

 

[English]

This is not overly true in operations where the captain is qualified for single pilot part 135 operations. If anything I have seen guys in the right seat of a King Air and other airplanes that are type certificated for single pilot operations do more damage than anything else. You surely do not need a gear slinger in some types of equipment and it can throw the flows off of the guy in the left seat who was trained, tested, and is "qualified" to be flying the aircraft as single pilot, simple as that.

3 5 0

For once I agree with 350.

When the tequila wears off, I'll probably disagree again.