Sic Illegal

[350DRIVER]

I wanted to get a few opinions regarding once again "SIC" time..
The 135 company I fly for requires "2" qualified 135 pilots on board meaning a PIC and SIC BUT our company ops specs DOES NOT REQUIRE a SIC on board- This is an "insurance" issue so all pilots who don't meet 135 PIC minimums are being given the required ground and flight training THEN a 135 SIC check ride (135.293) (FT106) which to me makes no sense since in my opinion you cannot legally log SIC time since there is no SIC required per our company ops specs and all King Airs are certified single pilot..... Fortunately I built up most all my flight time CFI ing and have only logged the part 91 legs as PIC time since I can "legally" do this in compliance with all the regs....

The question I have is not a matter of "how" to log SIC time since we are not allowed to log this but we have a few pilots who insist that having that "magic" FT106" SIC authorization allows them to do this in fact our senior pilots even say to log SIC time which I have no idea how they can come to this conclusion.?? The fact is that none of our airplanes are ever flown "single pilot" and they always have a part 135 qualified SIC on board even though the company ops specs does not require one so how is the best way that these pilots can log the flight time.?? Our chief pilot states that on the 135 legs since all the PIC's have their MEI and ATP that they endorse the SIC's logbook as dual given- I am not sure that this is correct but the insurance company allows this to count, and no where in the regs have anyone been able to shoot down this theory..- just curious if anyone has any opinions regarding this??

I have fought with our owner/chief pilot since for months he was upset at me for investing thousands of dollars in training me only to find out that I was not logging any SIC time at all and didn't understand this till I told him to contact the FSDO and what is even more bizzare is the explanation that the inspector gave hime saying that as long as he/she takes off and lands since he was "sole manipulator of the controls then he logs PIC time..- This made no sense to me since the people in the right seat are SIC qualified and NOT 135 PIC qualified so how could the inspector come up with this answer.??

I am getting ready to get my 350 type so it really doesn't effect me BUT it is a tad bothersome that the younger pilots are being given this info on how to log 135 time sitting in the right seat being 135 SIC qualified BUT the ops specs does not require that SIC to be there so how should they log that flight time?? Is it alright to log dual recieved as long as the PIC is an MEI/ATP??

any comments or opinions would be appreciated since everyone in our company has their own opinion and to me alot of those opinions are not correct BUT as most of the captains state how does the SIC build enough time to get the "magic" 1200 to upgrade to the left seat.??? I feel for some of these pilots since they are not CFI's and have no other way to build their flight time up BUT I think they may be making a mistake by logging time the way they do and was curious what you all thought since you have been in this business alot longer than I........


cheers and thanks for hopefully clearing this up....

 

[328dude]

If it's not in the Ops Specs that your POI signs off on then that SIC letter dosen't mean squat. Insurance company's might require 2 people, fine put another guy in the other seat, but be carefull how you log it.

For your sake, I hope your not logging PIC in that BE-350 on the 91 legs. You can't legally... (no type rating)

In general, it has to be in your ops specs...

 

[402driver]

SIC Time

If your Company's Operation Specifications have an approved SIC training program, and the pilot is qualified under 135.115 and 135.245, and is designated on the manifest as SIC, that person is a required crewmember and can log all time as SIC. Additionally, the SIC can log all time in which he/she is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC under 61.51.(e)(1)(i).

Note that whenaever a carrier chooses to use a SIC, for whatever reason, including the request of a customer, and the SIC is qualified and current (these terms contemplate, among other things, the pilot's completion of the carrier's SIC training program), he/she is a required crewmember and may log the time accordingly.

So, the Operation Specifications are the determining factor on whether or not an SIC can log time on 135 flights. Of course, part 91 flights can be flown by the SIC and they can log it as PIC under 61.51.(e)(1)(i).

Aloha

 

[328dude]

Good discription 402. I was to lazy to look it up. However, you can't log PIC in a airplane that requires a type rating if your not rated in it..

61.51 (E) Logging PIC Time
1. A Rec,Private, or Commercial pilot may log PIC time only for that flight time during which that person-
i.Is sole manipulator of the controls on an aircraft for which the pilot is RATED..
ii. Yada Yada Yada So on and so on.

Now, inless I'm reading this wrong, you can't log PIC in a aircraft that requires a type rating if you don't have the type.
Am I wrong on this?

 

[350DRIVER]

thx for your feedback- correct in the 300 and 350 it requires a type so only way they are having us log it is "dual received" since they are MEI's-don't think this is right though for some reason?

thx alot- lot of these guys are "old timers" and stuck in their ways even though its not right...

 

[DoinTime]

Of course, part 91 flights can be flown by the SIC and they can log it as PIC under 61.51.(e)(1)(i).

61.51(e)(1)(i) states: is the sole maipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated;

In this case the SIC is not rated in the equiptment because they have no type rateing. They can never log PIC.

Under 135 ops SIC time can only be logged under specific conditions if the ops specs only requires one pilot (i.e. flight in IMC, Cat II ops, aircraft requirements, ect...)

There has been some debate on how to log this time and the only thing reasonable is total time only. However, don't bring this total time with you to your United interview because they will show you the door if your single engine time plus your multi-engine time doesn't add up to your total time.

 

[328dude]

If you do get a SIC checkride and get that yellow carbon copy of such a ride, keep it with you forever. Also get a copy of your Ops specs that states that the operation of your company and aircraft require two crewmembers. If you ever decide to go with a 121 operator, you will be asked about it. It makes it easier to explain to them. Better safe then sorry.

Also, had some guy interview the other day in which he had all this actual time flying in the right seat of a LearJet. I asked him at what point is he logging actual. He stated all the time he is under IFR. Not when he is the sole pilot at the controls, but all the time he is acting as SIC and not the one flying. Make sure those young guys aren't doing this.

The guy got sent home.

 

[402driver]

More SIC stuff

61.51(e)(1)(i) states: is the sole maipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is RATED; so if you are not rated, you can not log the time PIC.

Under 135 ops SIC time can only be logged under specific conditions if the ops specs only requires one pilot (i.e. flight in IMC, Cat II ops, aircraft requirements, ect...)

Key Word is Ops Specs. Again....If your Company's Operation Specifications have an approved SIC training program, and the pilot is qualified under 135.115 and 135.245, and is designated on the manifest as SIC, that person is a required crewmember and can log all time as SIC. Part 135.109 requires that both PIC and SIC be designated for each flight (note that it does not say designated for each phase of flight i.e. IFR conditions, CAT II ops, etc.) The flight manifest satisfies 135.109. Additionally, the Ops Specs for two pilot crew operation must always be adhered to while operating with a two-pilot crew (checklists, PF/PNF duties, etc.)

Maybe some companies have single pilot and two pilot crew procedures which are to be followed simultaneously, but I doubt the FAA would approve that sort of operation (can you imagine trying to shift from one pilot crew ops to two pilot crew ops every time you flew into a cloud?)

Our Company Ops Specs has a Deviation which specifically states that for all operations that require an SIC (including whenever the airline chooses to use a SIC, for whatever reason, including the request of a customer), the flight crewmember listed as SIC on the load manifest may log that time as SIC. This deviation was put in to validate all SIC time.

Aloha

 

[avbug]

Everyone is getting warmer, but not quite there, yet.

The OpSpecs do not have to require a SIC. 14 CFR 135.101 requires a SIC for all operations carrying passengers under IFR, except for those operations which are granted specific authorization (via OpSpec A15) to use an autopilot in lieu of an SIC. Even in the presence of such an authorization, the operator may use the SIC in lieu of an autopilot.

The origional poster, 350 driver, states that he has been flightchecked for the position of SIC in the KingAir 350, and has been acting in that capacity under 135. This is legal, and appropriate, and he may log the time as SIC. He may do this without respect to manipulation of the controls.

He may log instrument time without respect to manipulation of the controls, or designation as first or second pilot (PIC vs. SIC).

He may not log PIC until type rated in the aircraft, or having been granted a Letter of Authorization in lieu of a type (but may act as PIC under certain specialized circumstances, without the type).

With respect to the question of receiving instruction from the PIC during the course of the flight; this is legal and acceptable, however, the PIC should ensure that instruction is indeed being provided. Simply being in posession of an instructor certificate (or ATP certificate in air transport service) does not automatically make one an authorized instructor for the flight, and does not mean instruction has been provided. That is to say, one may not simply indiscriminately endorse a logbook for instruction given, unless instruction has actualy been provided.

Endorsement by an instructor or ATP is not necessary in this case, as the origional poster is entitled to log the time without respect to the certification of the pilot in command. It must be logged as SIC, and sole manipulation time may not be logged as PIC in an aircraft requiring a type rating.

This subject aside, remember also that even in single pilot aircraft requiring a type rating, a PIC may be issued a type rating which requires a SIC. Thus, for that pilot to legally fly the aircraft type certificated for single pilot operations, the pilot may require a SIC, and the SIC becomes a required crew member even under Part 91. OpSpecs are not the only means of requiring a SIC.

 

[stingray]

350driver anyway you can leagally log time do it, it may seem wierd, but screw it, multi time especially turbine time is to hard to come by.

 

[ifly4food]

He may log instrument time without respect to manipulation of the controls, or designation as first or second pilot (PIC vs. SIC).

Avbug, can you discuss this in greater detail please? I have only been logging instrument time when in actual instrument conditions and sole manipulator of the controls for years. Have I been selling myself short?
Thanks.

 

[414Flyer]

Avbug, can you discuss this in greater detail please? I have only been logging instrument time when in actual instrument conditions and sole manipulator of the controls for years. Have I been selling myself short?
Thanks.

Yes please do. I know on the ATP written, that was specifically addressed, and as an SIC, you could only long IFR time when acting as sole manipulator, not just when in FR

 

[Bluto]

Avbug?

It is my understanding that you may log instrument time as an SIC while not acting as sole manipulator of the controls. It is simply a condition of flight, like logging night time. However, when logging approaches and landings you may only log them for recency requirements when acting as sole manipulator of the controls. You may log actual instrument time when in actual conditions whether you are the FP or NFP, as long as you are a required crewmember. At least this is my understanding.

Avbug? Some clarification please?

 

[328dude]

A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person (not plural) operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

 

[avbug]

Instrument time is a condition of flight, as shown in 14 CFR 61.51(b)(3). Conditions of flight include day or night, actual instrument conditions, or simulated instrument conditions. If two crewmembers are required by the aircraft type certification to operate the aircraft (or the regulations under which the flight is conducted), it's rather difficult to have one crewmember flying in instrument conditions, and the other not, regardless of who is manipulating the controls.

61.51(g)(1) is the reference quoted by 328dude. An aircraft requiring more than one crewmember must be operated by both crewmembers. One is operating the aircraft as PIC, and the other as SIC.

The FAR makes no requirement to separate instrument time as SIC or as PIC, but many employers do. I've had to do this on application forms many times. In my own logbook, I differentiate between PIC-actual instrument and SIC-actual instrument, etc. In a total column, it's all instrument, but I make notations every few pages in the margin, or in a sticker, that show the breakdown.

This was discussed with some dissention on the FAR board for this site. I left a posting that shows John Lynch, AFS-640, disagrees with my position in his FAX site. He holds that only one person is operating the aircraft in an aircraft requiring more than one crewmember. This is not correct, and one will quickly learn that both pilots may be violated in enforcement proceedings, as both are considered to be operating the aircraft....usually too late.

Only one pilot may log an approach, and only one pilot may log a landing. However, instrument conditions apply to the conditions of flight, and except for simulated instrument flight, most certainly both pilots are in the same conditions of flight.

If the flight is conducted using an aircraft flight control system/autopilot, and no one touches the controls, who is logging the instrument time if no one is manipulating the controls? When FMS does the work, is only the FMS entitled to log the time? Of course not. Should only the legal PIC log the time, if it's the SIC/PF's leg? Of course not. Both pilots are in those conditions, and both pilots should log the time without respect to who is touching what.

 

[stingray]

whoever is the one desinated as the flying pilot is the one that logs the instrument time. (pic, sic, autopilot doesn't matter.)

 

[328dude]

Avbug: Great post but I have to disagree and agree with stingray on this.

If only one pilot is allowed to log the landing and approach, then how is both allowed to log actual? Regardless how many crew members the aircraft needs. I need to be in the plane in order for it to land (vague i know) then why can't I log the landing or the approach (I don't do it though) if I'm just running the gear handle?

If we are talking about phases of flight then is a approach a phase of the flight? If it is then is a actual instrument approach a phase or a condition? What I'm saying is that only one person can log the landing visual or actual. Fine I agree with that, but I can't log the approach in actual if I'm not flying.

Am I making sense or am I being stupid? Make the madness go away..................

 

[avbug]

"Flying Pilot" isn't designated. The PIC and SIC are designated positions which are fixed under Parts 121 and 135, and flexible under 91. However, the pilot flying may be either pilot.

If you are suggesting that only the pilot manipulating the controls may log the time, this is not correct.

Only the pilot who performs a landing, or an approach, may log that landing or an approach. However, conditions of flight apply to the flight generally. If a PIC and SIC fly for one hour together in instrument conditions, the PIC may log one hour of instrument conditions, and log his flight time as pilot-in-command. The SIC may log one hour of instrument time (conditions of flight), and one hour of second-in-command.

 

[328dude]

Then why cant you log a actual instrument approach if your the NFP? It's in actual conditions.... When do you stop logging actual and the condition switches over to an approach? This is getting alittle deep into the issue but I still don't agree.

I can't see how a pilot can log actual (regardless of their position in the aircraft) if they are not the flying pilot. Are you able to log it if your on VNAV/LNAV and in actual and it's not your leg?

Im getting a headache

 

[gump88]

AvBug is incorrect!! Only the pilot manipulating the controls in IMC may log that time as actual instrument. Please be careful with this because you will be questioned in an interview, especially if your actual instrument time is unusually high in relation to the total time.

gump

 

[Bluto]

Day, night, actual instrument, and VMC are all conditions of flight. An instrument approach, like a landing, is not a condition of flight. Do you log night time as PNF? Now, I can see where there is some debate. 61.51(g)(1) does state:

A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument conditions.

While this is worded somewhat ambiguously ("person", instead of people), it makes no mention of being the "sole manipulator" of the controls in fact, it makes no mention of manipulating the controls at all. For legal purposes, who is considered as "operating the aircraft" under part 121, or 135? Is it just the captain? If that's the case, according to this reg, SICs could never log instrument time. I know you guys don't think that is the case. I would suggest that when an SIC is required, both the PIC and SIC can be considered to be operating the aircraft. Also, in 61.51(b)(3) it states that you *must* log "Conditions of flight- day or night, actual instrument, simulated instrument..." for the purposes of meeting aeronautical experience requirements.

 

[avbug]

Bluto is correct.

The reason that one only logs landings and approaches when one has performed them are two-fold; one is that he FAR specifically states this to be the case, and requires that for the purposes of currency, the landings and approaches must be performed by the person logging them. The second, tied with the first, is the purpose the FAR makes this requirement; landings and approaches are skill related functions and represent specific acts.

Instrument conditions are nothing more than conditions of flight. A landing is an act or function, not a condition of flight. An instrument approach is an act, not a condition of flight.

A SIC may not log an approach if the SIC has not performed the approach. A PIC may not log the approach, if the PIC has not performed the approach. However, both PIC and SIC may log instrument time for the duration of that approach, because their presence is required in the aircraft in order to operate the aircraft, and the conditions of flight were instrument conditions.

Someone commented on having a disproportionate amount of instrument time. Typically an applicant is anticipated to have an average of approximately 10% instrument time, for the average pilot. Slightly more or less than this is acceptable. Large differences from the norm may require explaination, but I have never had a raised eyebrow in many years of flying, and many inteviews. Additionally, logging instrument time regardless of position, assignment, or manipulation of controls, does not create a disproportionate amount of time in the logbook.

Comparing the logging of approaches and landings to the logging of instrument time is comparing apples and oranges. It's nonsensical, rather like comparing hours flown to colors of airplanes flown. One may indeed log instrument conditions during an approach, but one may only log the approach if one performed the approach.

 

[402driver]

AUTOPILOT?

I agree with Avbug, he has got this subject figured out!

IMC is a condition of flight. If you're a required crewmember, you can log the conditions of flight (night, IMC, etc.) Saying that you can not log IMC (Instrument Meteorological CONDITIONS) if you are not actually flying the aircraft is as ridiculous as saying you can't log IMC time if the autopilot is "operating" the aircraft.

Just my $0.02 worth

Aloha!

 

[328dude]

Absolutly amazing. I actually got in my car and drove over to the MM center in OKC and asked this specific question (this wasent the only reason I was there).

Wouldn't you know it, three diffrent answers by three diffrent guys. Had a forth but he kept changing his position halfway threw the rant. I'm still not sure what he ment.....

Either way, I'm getting to the point where everyone will interpete the FARS diffently from others. Go with your gut feeling and hopefully your right. I would tell you to ask the FAA but I'm still in total shock by those guys over there. I guess I found Waldo.
Later

Avbug, you are impossible to debate with. Ever think of politics?
I mean this in a good way.

Take care

 

[avbug]

328,

I'm really not into a debate, but would much rather explore an issue. In this thread, for example, some about the topic was of enough interest to prompt a variety of responses...all of which were insightful and equally of value.

Politics to me, are a dirty word. I'd rather be subject to a long root canal over several months, in a land of no anesthesia or electricity, by a doctor who uses candles for lighting and who obtained his diploma from the same facility that taught Dan Quayle to spell "potatoe."

While the Mike Monroney center is filled with high ranking and authorative people, none are qualified or empowered to provide you with a legal interpretation. Much like visiting a FSDO, the best you can receive is an opinion. Frustrating...yes. Typical? Yes. Expect that on all issues. No answer received from an inspector is acceptable or defensible as fact; it can never be counted for more than opinion.

This seems problematic and nonsensical. However, it isn't as absurd as it might appear. A pilot working the line for a large airline, by comparison, might make a statement about the airline. This statement might be a reiteration of company policy, or it might be the opinion of the pilot about company policy. The pilot is not empowered to make statements for the company, nor to interpret policy. The worker bees in the FAA are in the same boat. They are tasked with maintaining policies and enforcing those policies as they are taught, but they are not empowered to interpret the policies.

Accordingly, until receiving direction from someone or a source that is empowered to interpret the regulation, take it with some grain of salt.

 

[ifly4food]

While the Mike Monroney center is filled with high ranking and authorative people, none are qualified or empowered to provide you with a legal interpretation. Much like visiting a FSDO, the best you can receive is an opinion. Frustrating...yes. Typical? Yes. Expect that on all issues. No answer received from an inspector is acceptable or defensible as fact; it can never be counted for more than opinion.

Thank you for your answer. I can see where you base your opinion from. Let's all remember, however, that Avbug's interpretation is just one more opinion (interpretation), and nothing more. If 4 feds in OKC couldn't agree, than who can!
The bottom line is that the only interpretation that matters is the one who is interviewing you or the fed that is violating you.
When it comes to logging time, go with your instincts of what is right and fair.
For now, I'm going to continue only logging actual IFR when I'm the sole manipulator.

 

[Speedtree]

so we ask the question. Who is qualified to give interpretation of FARs? Are there different levels of Inspectors within the FAA or is it just the hearing board who is investigating your incident/accident who ultimately decides. I agree that you will get very different responses from any number of FAA personnel. The head honcho at the Houston FSDO when giving CFI checkrides always stresses the FARs and only your own interpretation of them. He will not accept somebody else's interpretation as your answer to one of his questions even if it was his own interpretation. He puts all the responsibility on each individual to interpret the FARs for themselves.

So I agree with 328dude, Avbug, and IFFF. Interpret them for yourself and I always take the conservative way out. Logging less time probably won't hurt you except to slow you down a little. Logging too much time could potentially get you. And this applies to other areas of logging time as well. I don't operate SIC so I haven't had to make this decision yet.

 

[avbug]

Don't interpret the FAR for yourself. Take the time to get to know the regulation; most of it is very plain. Where areas of ambiguity remain (mostly intentional in the writing of the FAR), legal interpretations do in many cases exist.

Who is qualified to give interpretation of the FAR? The FAA Chief Legal Counsel writes interpretations, all of which are archived and available (I have them on CD, along with all other FAA publications). These give a great deal of insight into the rendering of the appropriate portions of the CFR.

"The bottom line is that the only interpretation that matters is the one who is interviewing you or the fed that is violating you. "

This is not correct. An inspector may follow specific guidelines or an understanding in bringing enforcement action. However, in so doing, the inspector is not able to interpret the FAR. He or she may only act within the guidelines as he or she understands them. The interpretation of the FAR will be handled in the appeals process, as provided in administrative law.

The "fed" does not violate you. An inspector may initiate enforcement action, but once initiated, much like a police officer writing a speeding ticket, it's out of his hands. He simply starts the process. The process itself is in your hands. How the individual inspector views the FAR is largely irrelevant, as the only rendering that is of effect is that provided in the appeals process. In every case, the true rendering of the specific law will be shown, and will be applicable.

It behooves every pilot to research and understand the relevant federal aviation regulations. Most of the time when a question comes up, it's proposed by someone who hasn't cracked a book, and then doesn't like the response because it may differ from the traditional public perception.

In my own case, I do NOT offer an interpretation of the FAR. That is outside the scope of my authority and ability, and in no case will I attempt to do so. I may offer an opinion. However, where references are provided, the law is clear on the matter. Most of the time, it's simply a matter of reading and applying that law.

One caution on that subject, and that is that a reading of one passage or subparagraph is usually insufficient to understand the FAR. A common example is the logging of time. 61.51(e)(1)(iii) is often the basis for the dual logging of PIC time during safety pilot training operations. This is legal and acceptable, but needs reference to 91.109(b)(1) for clarification as to the necessity of the second crewmember, to qualify the logging of that time. It also requires reference to 61.51(e)(1)(i). Many segments of the FAR require cross referencing for a full or better understanding of both the legality, and allowances of the law.

 

[TurboS7]

Wait a minute. When I am in my 738 and the first officer is flying does that mean I don't have to look at the instruments to back up my FO. What if he goes into a death spiral into the ground, I am not responsible because I am not required to look at my instruments, I am not logging time so why should I look??? Think about it, I agree with Avbug.

 

[350DRIVER]

This is probably the most concerning and frustrating thing that is bothersome since that was the advice I gave some of our other pilots who are going to be around our flight department for awhile. But it seemed as soon as I told them to contact the FSDO and get a "correct" answer it was no more than an "opinion" that they have received and it seemed like for as many as inspectors as they would speak to all the answers or as I would call them "opinions" were all different...... It is truly amazing since I thought it was a very clear answer regarding the logging of SIC time BUT the inspectors at out FSDO seemed to have numerous "different" opinions that varied from each others.....

One Inspector a lady told one of our pilots that as long as the so-called SIC who was 135 qualified SHOULD log PIC on the 135 legs in the C90B instead of logging SIC IF he took off and did the landing even though he did not have 135 PIC authorization- go figure how she came up with this opinion but she seemed that this was the only "correct" way to do it in her opinion- a tad ming boggling after reading the regs inside and out....

Probably the best thing to do is GET a typed letter from the inspector on how to log the time and keep it with you forever so IF you are ever questioned that inspector would also be questioned and YOU would have an "out" during an interview..

I know at 23 years of age I am taking all precautions because I do plan to go 121 very shortly I hope and I am not going to be questioned about this which now seems to be a very large opinionated grey area that the inspectors all seem to be divided on.....

I thank all of you for your positive feedback and knowledge- It is a great way to broaden my horizon and also an honor in a way to be able to get a seasoned pilots interpretation...

thx alot once again to all who have taken the time to respond