seat fillers

[U-I pilot]

aint pimpin'

I am not trying to pimp my self out there however it would be easy for a high time pilot like yourself to see it this way I imagine. I am just throwing the ball out in the court to dig up some opinions which now i have: this is good! I am still just getting my ratings and gotta start thinking about what direction I may wanna go when i get the chance. It aint so easy to get a Multi job of some kind yet CFIing coming out of school with 300TT. If some employer is not gonna pay me to sit in that seat you seem to think I am selling myself short when I get these hours. By the same token, he could be flying these legs without me and I would still be getting no money....I like it better with the time building.

my still learning $.02

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Sounds like you should go for it!

As far as "high time".. 5000hrs is not that many believe me...
I had 170 hours Total Time not TOO many years ago myself, and went through the same "gotta get multi time" delemia...all us civilian pilots have..

You will look back on it and laugh, rest assured. Until then just do yourself a favor and build that time SAFELY and Legally!!!

Best of Luck!

 

[Chunk]

Gulfstream,

I don't believe in CFI'in for free. I don't believe in PFT. I don't believe in whoring yourself out. All because you are TAKING THE POSITION a more qualified pilot would normally occupy....only getting the seat because you're saving the operator $$ the salary of a proper FO.

That's not what the original poster is asking for. There is *nothing* immoral or wrong about sitting in a seat that normally would be empty. You aren't taking away anyone's job AND you're learning and logging at the same time. These are good things to do!

Please do not forget how tough it is to make it in aviation, even in the best of times.

Respectfully,

Chunk

 

[jdru25]

If you want multi time the secret is to network yourself at your local airport. Get to know some of the local pilots and hopefully you will meet one with a twin. Be polite and outgoing with everyone you meet at the airport.........they just may be able to help you.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

There is *nothing* immoral or wrong about sitting in a seat that normally would be empty.

never said there was!, just suggested there are BETTER ways to go....(like getting PAID!) HECK, I dont even think PFT'ing is "immoral" like many here...whatever gets you by. I never thought a PFT'er took any job I would have wanted, so I dont care!

All is was suggesting is to set your standards high, as that will put you into better jobs - regardless of what level you are currently at.

Please do not forget how tough it is to make it in aviation, even in the best of times.

PLEASE dont ever tell ME how hard it is to "make it"!!

I think we all know.....right?

 

[passion4flying]

I remember when I started. I beg, borrowed and stealed every hour I could. Some of it was for free. But it got me the hours I needed for better jobs down the road. This is an extremely hard industry to break into. It is not immoral to sit in the right seat and not get paid for it. You have to do anything and everything (legally) to get those hours and get your career going. Good luck. I remember those days and they sucked. Good luck again and God's speed.

Passion

 

[puddlejumper]

Ride Along Issues

Something that would have to be addressed in the case of a required crewmember ride-along would be the training required by the FARs for SICs. If the ride-along is not an employee of the company, that person is considered a passenger. The person acting as SIC needs to have received training and have completed the 3 takeoffs and landings without pax. That could become an insurance and legal issue if it is done with a non-employee.

The DC-3 operation from the post above would have to be approved for passengers in order for the ride-along to be jumpseating, right?

If there is someway for a potential ride-along to get the required training to be the SIC on 91 flights, it may just work out. The ride-along could probably get that accomplished with some maintenance or ferry flights, I suppose.

-PJ

 

[jamhamms]

Ride Along Issues Addressed

Thanks very much to DOC at ProPilot.com for this response to a similar question several months ago. It addresses the legalities for SIC in single-pilot multi-engine cargo airplanes, as well as pressurized and non-pressurized multi-engine two-crew cargo airplanes. This is copied verbatim from the message board at ProPilot.com.

This should adequately address who can fly what, and when, and when they can log the time. As an aside, I flew as a ride-along before I was hired as a DC3 SIC. I had previously flown JS32 SIC for a now-defunct charter operator, and had even gone back to work in my degreed (non-aviation) profession when the opportunity to fly again presented itself. It worked out great for me, but that's not to say it would work out this well for anyone else. I'm flying, getting paid (not much), and love going to work. I ain't complaining.



**********************************************
Here's the scenario:

Lear 25 with a typed and 135-current PIC, and a current and 135-qualified SIC leaves PHX empty, enroute to Flagstaff. Also aboard is a CMEL pilot that is not 135 qualified, but otherwise current. At Flagstaff they load the freight and head for ABQ. After dumping the freight in ABQ, the deadhead back home to PHX. Can the non-135 CMEL guy legally fly in the right seat on the empty legs? I've heard that the empty legs might be operated as part 91, and he can log the time.

If it won't work with the Lear, will it work with an airplane that doesn't need a high-altitude endorsement, like a Beech 18 or a DC3?


DOC's Response:

"The commercial pilot, AMEL, may occupy the right (or left) seat on non-revenue legs, as these legs are not operated under FAR 135, since no passengers or cargo are on board which are being transported for compensation or hire. They are considered to be ferry (or repositioning) flights and are excluded from FAR 135 regulation by FAR 119.1(e)(3).

Since the LR-25 type certificate requires two pilots, he may act as SIC and log SIC time for the entire flight as provided in FAR 61.51(f). He may do so whether the purpose of the flight is to establish SIC currency; or if he is already qualified under FAR 61.55 as an SIC, the purpose is to get him some experience in the type.

If he holds an LR-JET type rating, then he may log PIC time, even if he is not current to act as PIC, under the provisions of FAR 61.51(e)(1)(i), which merely requires that he be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which he is RATED, with no requirement to be CURRENT. But, he may not ACT as PIC unless he is current to do so.

As for the DC-3 and the BE-18:
Many versions of the DC-3 do not require more than one pilot under the type certificate, but do require a second in command since it is a large airplane not subject to SFAR 41 (see FAR 91.531(a)(1)), so the pilot could log SIC time on the FAR 91 legs. If he was type-rated for the DC-3, he could log PIC time if he was the sole manipulator of the controls, as described for the LR-JET above.

The Beech 18 is not a large aircraft and its type certificate data sheet is silent as to the number of required pilots. If the AFM requires two pilots, then the regulations under which the flight is conducted require compliance with the AFM limitations (see FAR 91.9) and so the SIC could log SIC time. If no regulations (FAR) nor the AFM require more than one pilot, then the "ride along" pilot could not log SIC time as he does not meet any of the FAR 61.51(f) provisions to log SIC time.

But since the Beech 18 does not require a type rating, the pilot could log PIC time when he is the sole manipulator of the controls since he is rated for AMEL aircraft.

FYI with respect to the Lear 25: The issue of the high altitude endorsement is moot since the endorsement is only required for the pilot who is ACTING as the PIC of the flight.

I hope this helps!

Regards

Doc

*****************************************

Long, but worth the read.

James

 

[Steve]

C-208 question

Can someone log SIC time in a Cessna 208 Caravan if it is a privately owned Part 91 airplane? Is this legal? Under what conditions is this legal?

 

[cvsfly]

No. And if you come to me with "well I'm a safety pilot and the other pilot is flying under the hood for instrument training" I'd laugh you out the interview door. I know lots of guys are out there (and always have been) that say I just want to ride along "and log some flight time". Well 99% of these situations are just logbook padding. If you can't get it legally, might as well just sit at the airport and record N numbers as they taxi by and put time in your logbook. Those who are truely there just for the experience take it for that and forget the logbook. All my hours where PIC (or solo and dual given) prior to training, qualified and authorized SIC in 135 operations.