seat fillers

[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.

 

[FLpilot]

this guy/gal shouldn't be so quick to pimp himself out for free.....all thats going to attract is BAD JOBS

No truer words were ever spoken. Forget all the moral high minded crap the fact of the matter is Gulfstream 200 is right, blind desperation will only serve to land you somewhere you don't want to be. I went chasing after a job more experienced friends warned me to stay away from but I didn't listen cause I wanted to get jet time at all cost. Well it took me two months before I came to my senses and realized the job wasn't worth a possible violation (or worse.) The moral of the story is if I hadn't been so desperate I never would have gotten invloved with an outfit like that to begin with. I haven't flown in over a year but I don't regret the decision for a second. This is not an anti PFT sermon or anything like that just that a warning not to be so ambitous that you become a target for one of the many sleezy indivuals/outfits there are in aviation. Be careful.

 

[U-I pilot]

If the first situation comes up (an airplane requiring two pilots) and you will go thrugh training and take the checkride for the 8410...make sure you get paid.

I figured this much but thanks for all the input. As I have said earlier, I just wanna see what options are out there. Its also good to know all this info BEFORE getting into one of these situations where I might be getting screwed. Lots of great things to keep for future reference.
Thanks

 

[jamhamms]

Seat Fillers followup

If the company is operating an aircraft, that requires two pilots, under 135, than the SIC needs to be trained in the aircrft, and have a current 8410.

That is true, but only on the legs that are actually carrying freight. The empty legs (ferry/positioning) are FAR 91 legs. See my post above for the actual wording of the relevant regulations.

I agree that a pilot should be paid for his/her work. Does that mean there is no value in legally participating in the operation of a large multiengine aircraft, in the actual operating environment (ATL, CLT, CYKF, ORF, IND, MKE, IAD, DTW, ORD, LGA, etc)? For instace, the cheapest DC3 dual time I have seen advertised is around $800/HR, and that's just for a few takeoffs and landings. maybe I'm all wet, but I see some tangible value on doing the ride-along thing, especially if it leads to a job. A couple of hours of dual in the same plane is big $$, and that would be conducted in a very limited (day/vfr/local) environment.

 

[LJDRVR]

I'm not going to get involved with the: is it morally right?" portion of this debate. I DO however, feel compelled to respond concerning the legal and safety implications of some of the scenarios being suggested here. First the legal aspect. In the scenarios described above, the ride-along guy or gal manipulates the controls during the empty legs and logs SIC time.

This person has no training in the AC (Required)

Unless the certificate holder is billing the freight customer ONLY for the occupied legs. then the whole trip is considered for hire flying. If y'all think I'm wrong on this, please contact you FSDO and your insurance company. This whole "the airplane's coming home empty! You guys are part 91! You don't need to comply with :_____(wx, duty times, etc)" Is the biggest BS hoax perpetrated by less than informed operators in the industry! Jamhamms, if your passenger ground loops the -3 during rollout (and I know you would catch it first man ) your carrier's insurance company will walk away from the claim if they discover what happened. If the customer was quoted a trip that says: ABC-DEF-GHI-ABC, then it doesn't matter if the freight was only on the DEF-GHI leg. The whole trip is for hire. The operator is certainly not giving away two out of the three legs. The customer paid for them, it's for-hire.

Check your operations manual. I'm betting that it has a portion that says other than crew, the only people allowed on your freight aircraft are company employees, FAA ops inspectors, government courriers for classified material, and animal handlers. I could be wrong.

And now the Safety issues. Someone mentioned in their thread an example of a Learjet ride-along. I'm a bit of a hypocrite to say this, as I once bamboozled a Learjet flight or two back in my CFI days. (I got paid. Had to bug the the guy for 6 months, but I got paid.) While I certainly thought at the time it was a grand idea, Now I'm able to look back on it with the perspective of over 2000 hours of Lear time. The facts are this:

The Captain/Operator was a sc_mbag

If this guy had keeled over, I would probably not be writing this now.

The jet was not properly maintained. We flew three legs with a mechanical condition that I would walk away from now. As an eager young CFI, I just didn't know the difference. When I think about it now I shudder. Any Learjet Captain willing to put an un-trained person in the right seat is a miscreant. (Bring on the flames)

U-1 pilot. I feel for you dude. I remember how difficult it was to get those first multi-engine hours. If you are going to warm somebodies right seat, make sure that you recieve training first. At a minimum, some ground instruction and three bounces with you at the controls. Best of luck my friend. It seems insurmountable now, but you'll make it.

Warm Regards,

 

[hopeful]

If you Non Rev to an airport to pick up pax, then yes you are 91, but will still need the 8410 in order to be able to fly back with the pax, or frieght.

Thats not necessarily true. It depends on how your fed interperets the regs. Some view a reposition leg for a revenue flight as part 135. Most reposition legs of this type are paid for by the customer, thus making them a part 135 leg.

 

[hopeful]

If you Non Rev to an airport to pick up pax, then yes you are 91, but will still need the 8410 in order to be able to fly back with the pax, or frieght.

Not true.

If the passengers are paying for the reposition, which they nearly always do, then it is a 135 leg. Even if the aircraft is empty, it is still a paid revenue flight, thus making it 135.

 

[AAPvtPilot]

Okay with all that said.......... are there any operators in California that will let you "fill the seat"?

 

[mike1mc]

The jobs are out there, you just need to dig DEEP to fidn them. Before graduating college I sent out many a resume to every company in the northeast. I got a reply back from one operator looking for a "copilot" on a BE58. I got the job, did the training and took the 135 SIC checkride and now fly as SIC (with an 8410) even though our Ops Specs don't require an SIC (if PIC has a 135.105 check). The catch is the insurance company is now requiring 2 pilots regardless of the operation. This may be the case with other operators, but I don't know of any offhand. I'd keep looking around. Just because an SIC isn't required by FARs, that doesn't mean that companies don't need them (especially for small twins). Also keep in mind I don't have a lot of hours (by any stretch of the imagination) and I'm not a CFI. I work in Operations when not flying (which has been extremely valuable). Good luck and I hope something turns up for you!

 

[Sunnfun]

Just because an SIC isn't required by FARs, that doesn't mean that companies don't need them (especially for small twins).

Sure. But do you log the time as SIC? If yes, what part of 61.57(f) gives you the right to do so?

(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.

Cheers,
Sun'n Fun

 

[mike1mc]

I do log the time as SIC, but it falls under Part 135 since it is a charter operation. I do not log SIC for the flights that are Part 91 (repositioning/owner), but I'm usually flying these legs and log them as PIC.