Seat-dependent training/checking 135

[xdashdriver]

Getting back to the seat dependent training question... If there are no significant differences in instrumentation and equipment between the respective seats, additional seat dependent training and checking should be minimal. On airplanes with equipment that is accessable to only one seat, such as a nose steering tiller or emergency gear extension mechanism, both pilots will probably have to demonstrate competence in operating the equipment from the appropriate seat. Non flying pilot duties usually can be demonstrated from either seat. In any event, the final say is up to the POI. If there are no equipment/instrumentation differences between the seats, many POI's will consider one approach and landing from each seat adequate to satisfy the seat dependent requirements.

I was qualified PIC/SIC on a Kingair B100. The seat dependent training consisted of the POI asking me "do you want SIC privileges too?" at the completion of my 135 PIC ride. He then checked the appropriate box on the form and I was qualified. There was no specific seat-dependent training tasks in our Training Program at all.

 

[cvsfly]

Perhaps you could point out the post wherein transpac posted the statement you disagree with.

I don't disagree. I did a poor job of quoting and pasting from 350DRIVER. I'm trying to figure out what specific "custom written" Ops Spec 350driver is referring to that authorizes his company to use SICs in single-pilot aircraft. I haven't seen anything that requires that language. Whether or not you have A015 authorization, I believe you can still use SICs in single-pilot aircraft as long as their training and checking is documented as any other crewmember. What happens when that auto-pilot becomes inop or you have lower than standard take-off minimums or want to be an "eligible operator" coming from 91K/135 rewrite? We don't use SICs "off the street". We have standard training together and we are CRM coordinated as any turbo-jet crew.

 

[transpac]

cvsfly:


Thanks!

Glad to know we're on the same page. I thought we were essentially saying the same thing. But, I'm aware that there's always room for improvement in my writing skills.

 

[350DRIVER]

Actually, the reverse is true. In order to carry passengers in IFR operations WITHOUT an SIC, then the autopilot authorization must be included in the OpSpecs. FAA Regional Counsel has interpreted (read it yesterday, don't have a link, sorry) that the autopilot is simply an authorization giving the company an option to use either the autopilot OR an SIC. They further interpret that should the company choose to use an SIC in lieu of the autopilot, that the SIC (who must be fully qualified as an SIC for that operator in that aircraft in order to act as such) may log the time. Additionally (still from the letter of interpretation), under 61.51, if the SIC is rated in the aircraft (i.e. in a Kingair, has a multi-engine rating) and it's "his" leg, he can log PIC as sole manipulator. The PIC also gets to log PIC in this case since he is the acting PIC and is the only qualified pilot to ACT as PIC on board the aircraft. I'll see if I can dig up the actual interpretation.

Ray

The autopilot authorization must also be included in the ops specs, that is correct. I have also read the letter of interpretation (if it is the same one) that you are referring to. You hit the nail on the head with regards to what a "qualified" SIC is. If they are "company qualified" then obviously some "approved" training course would have had to be completed Sat.

Getting back to the seat dependent training question... If there are no significant differences in instrumentation and equipment between the respective seats, additional seat dependent training and checking should be minimal. On airplanes with equipment that is accessable to only one seat, such as a nose steering tiller or emergency gear extension mechanism, both pilots will probably have to demonstrate competence in operating the equipment from the appropriate seat. Non flying pilot duties usually can be demonstrated from either seat. In any event, the final say is up to the POI. If there are no equipment/instrumentation differences between the seats, many POI's will consider one approach and landing from each seat adequate to satisfy the seat dependent requirements.

Seat dependent training and checking should be "minimal"?. One approach and one landing from each seat would be adequate to satisfy the seat dependent requirements?. I may be missing something here but neither would satisfy the applicable part 135 regulations to get one current as either the PIC or SIC. Can you specify where you are finding the information at?. A breif review of part 135 didn't bring any "answers" to this....

cvs,

For kicks, what was or is your company's BE200 SIC training that is required to get one "SIC qualified" on that equipment?.

3 5 0

 

[Full of Foehn]

Legal link?

Actually, the reverse is true. In order to carry passengers in IFR operations WITHOUT an SIC, then the autopilot authorization must be included in the OpSpecs. FAA Regional Counsel has interpreted (read it yesterday, don't have a link, sorry)...I'll see if I can dig up the actual interpretation.

Here is a link to an FAA legal interpretation of this issue which supports raysalmon's information.

 

[transpac]

Seat dependent training and checking should be "minimal"?. One approach and one landing from each seat would be adequate to satisfy the seat dependent requirements?. I may be missing something here but neither would satisfy the applicable part 135 regulations to get one current as either the PIC or SIC. Can you specify where you are finding the information at?. A breif review of part 135 didn't bring any "answers" to this....

3 5 0

I'm about to declare a failure to communicate!! The subject is seat dependent training, not Part 135 currency. The required training can be anything from nothing at all to full blown training in each seat. As raysalmon pointed out, his POI approved zero seat dependent training. Other POIs might require more. As stated earlier, an approach and landing from each seat is usually the most any POI will require for small airplanes.