SIC Programs-Air Desert Pacific

[A Squared]

If an ops manual requires a second crewmember, and the FAA approves it as such, then they are a required crewmember.

No, this is another Myth. The operations manual is not regulatory. This has been upheld in NTSB orders. The operatings manual is nothing more than a comapny policy manual. The FAA reviews the ops manual to make sure that it is consistent with good practices and that it is not conatrary to the regulations. This does not make it regulatory. Your ops manual may say that you have to wear a tie, many do. This does not make it a violation if you forget your tie. Same for a "required" SIC, the comapny can write that in if they want, the POI will accept that, because it is not contrary to any regulations, but that doesn't make the SIC required by the regulations.

 

[PCL_128]

No, this is another Myth. The operations manual is not regulatory. This has been upheld in NTSB orders.

Please reference any such orders that back you up on this. To the best of my knowledge, the OM is just as binding as any reg.

 

[A Squared]

Here's two Legal opinons from the FAA's Chief Counsel. the first quotes an NTSB Order which predates the earliest order found on the NTSB's website. If you're really interested you can locate a law library in your area which contains the NTSB orders and look it up.

THis later order quotes the earlier decision:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3649.PDF

We will grant respondent's appeal regarding the violation of
section 135.21(a), as the Administrator has identified no valid
reason for us to depart from our determiniation in Administrator
v. Hughes, NTSB Order No. EA-2866 at 4 (1989), that this
"regulation, when read as a whole, applies to operators and not
individuals."

FAA Legal Opinion:
February 28, 1991
Subject: INFORMATION: Enforceability of Manual Provisions Against Part 135 Employees


From: Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, AGC-200

To: Manager, Commuter/Air Taxi Branch, AFS-250

We have been advised by the Assistant Chief Counsel for the Central Region that there appears to be some confusion concerning the enforceability of manual provisions against the employees of Part 135 certificate holders. This memorandum is intended to briefly review the law on this issue. Please feel free to distribute it to your employees.

FAR Sec. 135.21(a) provides in relevant part as follows:

Each certificate holder ... shall prepare and keep current a manual setting forth the certificate holder's procedures and policies acceptable to the Administrator. This manual must be used by the certificate holder's flight, ground, and maintenance personnel in conducting its operations...

While a reading of the rule might be taken as an indication that it is enforceable against Part 135 employees, since it requires that the manual be used by Part 135 employees, the National Transportation Safety Board has held otherwise. In Administrator v. Hughes, EA-2866 (November 30, 1988), the Board held that Sec. 135.21(a) applies to holders of operating certificates and not to individual employees of certificate holders.

If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please give us a call.

/s/

Donald P. Byrne
cc:AGC-220/AGC-200


FAA Legal Opinion:
June 10, 1981
IN REPLY REFER TO: ASO-7

SUBJECT: Enforceability of FAR Section 135.21(a)

FROM: Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel

TO: ASO-200

The second sentence of FAR 135.21(a) provides that "This manual must be used by the certificate holder's flight, ground and maintenance personnel in conducting its operations." Your memo dated March 6, 1981, asks, in effect, whether, in light of the foregoing language, noncompliance with the certificate holder's manual by its employees in the conduct of air taxi operations would be a violation of Section 135.21(a).

We believe that Section 135.21 was never intended to be enforced in this manner. In arriving at this conclusion I have reviewed not only the appropriate regulatory sections but also the regulatory history of Section 135.21. Copies of this material are attached for reference.

Prior to the time Part 135 was amended in 1978 there only exists the requirement that a certificate holder "prepare and keep current a manual for the use and guidance of flight, ground operations, and maintenance personnel in conducting its operations." As noted above, amended language now provides that these individuals must "use" the manual. The question now arises as to the significance of this change.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 77-17 (42 FR 43490, August 29, 1977) included the following language pertaining to this change:

Section 135.23 [changed to Section 135.21 in the final rule] MANUAL REQUIREMENTS.

... In addition, this section would be revised by amending paragraph (a) to require each certificate holder who is required to have a manual to prepare a manual acceptable to the Administrator. Further, each flight, ground, and maintenance employee of the certificate holder would be required to use the manual in the conduct of the certificate holder's flight operations.


This language, on its face, would seem to imply that the FAA was about to make a radical departure from past practice by making noncertificated individuals (that is, ground employees) subject to disciplinary actions. Moreover, the change would be even more radical since we would be enforcing not only standards specified in the FARs but also internal company standards.

The extent of this change becomes apparent when considering specific cases. Consider, for example, a company manual requirement which provides that an aircraft refueler must turn in fuel slips to the chief of operations at the end of each day. Could the FAA logically take the position that if the refueler turns in the fuel slips at the end of each week and turns them in directly to the accounting department he would be in violation of the manual, and, therefore, in violation of Section 135.21(a) and subject to a civil penalty. The answer is self evident.

The language which was adopted in the final rule provides that the manual must be "used." The word "used" is, not defined in Part 1, so under the rules of construction we must apply its commonly accepted meaning. Webster's new collegiate dictionary provides the following definition.

USE (verb) 1. Accustom, habituate 2. to put into action or service; avail oneself of; employ 3. to consume or take (as liquor or drugs) regularly 4. to carry out a purpose of action by means of; utilize 5. to expend or consume by putting to use 6. to behave toward; act with regard to; treat

In considering this definition it is difficult to conclude that a requirement to use a manual is the same as a requirement to be bound by the manual. This conclusion is further strengthened when other language in the preamble and rule is considered. For example, the third sentence in Section 135.21(a), although addressing deviation, clearly implies that the manual is for the "guidance" of flight, ground and maintenance personnel. Guidance, by definition, is not mandatory but merely informatory.


After considering all of the material available and also after discussions with AGC-220 it seems clear that the requirement to "use" the manual was intended to mandate to the OPERATOR to insure that its personnel have sufficient guidance available and that company emphasis be placed on the use of this guidance. It was not intended to be enforceable against individual employees.

Now that the foregoing conclusion has been drawn a qualification must be inserted. In almost every case where enforcement action would be appropriate (that is, in cases other than the type used in the example above) there will be an appropriate FAR section other than 135.21(a) on which the violation action can be based. For example, if a pilot violates a manual's weight and balance provisions [see Section 135.23(b)], he will, in all probability, also be in violation of Section 135.185.

There will, of course, be times when an operator imposes on his employees a higher standard than required in the FARs. In a case where an employee violates this higher standard, under the guidance stated above, enforcement action would not be appropriate.

In summary, the rule of thumb should be that if an individual fails to comply with a part of the manual that is made mandatory by some section of the FARs other than Section 135.21(a) then the violated FAR should be cited. If, on the other hand, an individual violates a company standard not covered by the FARs then any enforcement action as to the violation of that standard should be at the discretion of the company.

This opinion has been coordinated with the Office of the Chief Counsel, Operations Law Branch, AGC-220 /s/
HERSCHEL H. HAMLEN, JR.

 

[HMR]

A Squared- Good info!

A pilot can put whatever he/she wants in a logbook. If you want to log your time in the back of a SouthWest 737 as "42nd in Command", go for it. I've never had a job interview that was conducted by the FAA or a POI. I don't really care what their opinion is on a Caravan SIC or what the OpSpecs at a bottom-feeder 135 company (i.e. ADP) say. What matters is what will be accepted by the guys doing the hiring at the next legitimate operator you apply to. Chances are, SIC in a Navajo won't rate very high.

 

[bobbysamd]

SIC(K) Programs = P-F-T

Anyone know about the Air Desert Pacific SIC Program in La Verne, CA? Or any SIC program you have attended and if it was worth the time and money. I know they offer 135 training and check ride and then 200 SIC multi hours for about 7,000. Do employers care if its PIC vs. SIC when it comes to total multi time? Any info on other places you have done SIC programs and your opionions about the programs would ve great.

This is obviously a pay-for-training ("P-F-T") program. Anyone who advertises a set amount of hours of SIC time for X amount of dollars is operating a P-F-T program. P-F-T is not worth the risk to your career and reputation.

P-F-T is primarily an employment issue. As a condition of employment you remit money to the company to pay off the cost of your training. Training expenses are a cost of doing business for companies, but they figure there are plenty of pilots who are desperate enough to fly that they will pay for their training. P-F-T amounts to buying a job. Schemes that sell you training and hours such as Air Desert Pacific, Eagle Jet, etc. are also P-F-T. The P-F-Ter is replacing a pilot who would still be a required crew member and/or is just riding along in the right seat logging SIC time that may be of questionable legality. You have seen that discussion above.

Employers may not care if you paid for training, but your peers will care. P-F-T is a scheme to end-run the traditional experience-building and time-building part of building an aviation career. Pilots work hard to build their experience and climb the ladder, and resent those who try to cut in line and shortcut the process. Wait til some pilot hiring board member starts paging through your logbook and asks you how you acquired your SIC time. You will have to answer.

Proponents of P-F-T are generally those who whine about how tough it is to build time, or they see no need for it. Some of them have had no luck getting the job they want for free so they pay for it via P-F-T.

A pilot job is only that - a job. There are plenty of other things one can do for work and not have to pay for a job. Do you want to embarass and humiliate yourself in front of an employer and your peers by buying your job and/or experience ordinarily obtained through regular employment? Do you want to compromise yourself in that way? Only you can answer these questions.

 

[Freight Dog]

Richard,

Stay away from Ari's Flying Circus (Air Desert Pacific). Their planes have been ready for the junkyard 15 years ago. If you have 570 hours as your info suggests, check out King Airelines in Henderson, NV. They hire low time guys around your time and transition them to 402's later on. Be flexible and willing to move.

PIC time is what will matter later on. SIC time doesn't mean much unless you are counting time towards your ATP, and even then you want it to be in something actually requiring 2 pilots like say a regional jet, or some turboprop that actually requires 2 pilots like say DHC-8, Saab 340, EMB-120, etc.

You don't really need to have mistakes from early on in your career such as buying worthless SIC time potentially follow you around in your career in the industry. You'll have enough competition as is...

Good luck, and keep looking. There are VFR 135 jobs around that you qualify with your time as a PIC. Just gotta keep looking...

 

[501261]

A pilot can put whatever he/she wants in a logbook. If you want to log your time in the back of a SouthWest 737 as "42nd in Command", go for it. I've never had a job interview that was conducted by the FAA or a POI. I don't really care what their opinion is on a Caravan SIC or what the OpSpecs at a bottom-feeder 135 company (i.e. ADP) say. What matters is what will be accepted by the guys doing the hiring at the next legitimate operator you apply to. Chances ar, SIC in a Navajo won't rate very high.

A lot of people think that, but let's not forget 61.59.

If you ever find yourself on the recieving end of a certified letter from the FAA, one of the first things they'll want to see is your logbooks.

§ 61.59 Falsification, reproduction, or alteration of applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, or records.

(a) No person may make or cause to be made:

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application for a certificate, rating, authorization, or duplicate thereof, issued under this part;

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or exercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part;

(3) Any reproduction for fraudulent purpose of any certificate, rating, or authorization, under this part; or

(4) Any alteration of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part.

(b) The commission of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking any airman certificate, rating, or authorization held by that person.

 

[Eagle-ista]

I would avoid Pacific Wings. I have flown with pilots that worked there, and they had less than glowing things to say about the experience. They operate Cessna Caravans out of Kapalua airport on Maui.

They are operating on the old Air Nevada certificate, they used to fly C-402Cs to the Grand Canyon from North Las Vegas. They had a SIC program there as well. When there was a chance of IFR weather, the SICs were assigned a Captain to fly with, and they could log the time. The Air Nevada planes did not have autopilots.

This is why you see "Air Nevada" signs when you drive into Honolulu airport.

Besides, PFT is PFT, no matter how nice the islands look.

 

[HMR]

A lot of people think that, but let's not forget 61.59.

Good post. My point was, every quality operator I know of (including the one I work for) wouldn't accept the "SIC in a single-pilot A/C" time no matter how many times the FSDO said it was legit.

 

[scubabri]

A-Squared.. I stand corrected on the ops-manual issue.

sb

 

[scubabri]

From Doc's Far forum page

March 26, 1992


Mr. Michael G. Tarsa


Dear Mr. Tarsa:

Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1991, in which you ask questions about logging pilot in command (PIC) and second in command (SIC) time when operating under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize that staff shortages, regulatory matters, and interpretation requests received prior to yours prevented us from answering your questions sooner.

Your letter presents the following scenario: a Part 135 certificate holder conducts operations in multiengine airplanes under instrument flight rules (IFR). The operator has approval to conduct operations without an SIC using an approved autopilot under the provisions of FAR 135.105. The operator has assigned a fully qualified pilot, who has had a Part 135 competency check, to act as SIC in an aircraft that does not require two pilots under its type certification. Although FAR 135.101 requires an SIC for Part 135 operations in IFR conditions, the autopilot approval is an exception to that requirement.

You correctly state that while the SIC is flying the airplane, he can log PIC time in accordance with FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) because he is appropriately rated and current, and is the sole manipulator of the controls. Additionally, he has passed the competency checks required for Part 135 operations, at least as SIC.

You then ask two questions. The first asks whether the pilot designated as PIC by the employer, as required by FAR 135.109, can log PIC time while the SIC is actually flying the airplane. The answer is yes.

FAR 1.1 defines pilot in command:

(1) Pilot in command means the pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.


FAR 91.3 describes the pilot in command:

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

There is a difference between serving as PIC and logging PIC time. Part 61 deals with logging flight time, and it is important to note that section 61.51, Pilot logbooks, only regulates the recording of:

(a) The aeronautical training and experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating, or the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

FAR 61.51(c) addresses logging of pilot time:

(2) Pilot in command flight time. (i) A recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot in command time only that flight time during which that pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft, or, except for a recreational pilot, when acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

(ii) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot in command time all of the flight time during which he acts as pilot in command.

(iii) (omitted).

(3) Second in command flight time. A pilot may log as second in command time all flight time during which he acts as second in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft, or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.

As you can see, there are two ways to log pilot in command flight time that are pertinent to your question. The first is as the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft during flight time. If a pilot is designated as PIC for a flight by the certificate holder, as required by FAR 135.109, that person is pilot in command for the entire flight, no matter who is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the aircraft.

The second way to log PIC flight time that is pertinent to your question is to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, as you mention in your letter. Thus, a multiengine airplane flown under Part 135 by two pilots can have both pilots logging time as pilot in command when the appropriately rated second in command is manipulating the controls.

We stress, however, that here we are discussing logging of flight time for purposes of FAR 61.51, where you are keeping a record to show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the requirements for a higher rating. Your question does not say if the second pilot in your example is fully qualified as a PIC, or only as an SIC. This is important, because even though an SIC can log PIC time, that pilot has not qualified to serve as a PIC under Part 135.

An example of this difference is FAR 135.225(d), which raises IFR landing minimums for pilots in command of turbine powered airplanes flown under Part 135 who have not served at least 100 hours as PIC in that type of airplane. Served and logged are not the same in this context, and no matter how the SIC logs his time, he has not served as a PIC until he has completed the training and check rides necessary for certification as a Part 135 PIC.

Approval for single pilot operations with use of an operative approved autopilot system under FAR 135.105 gives an operator an additional option in the conduct of operations. It does not mandate that all future flights be conducted in that manner. The operator can elect to fly trips with two pilots, as is otherwise required for flight in IFR conditions under FAR 135.101, using the second in command instead of the autopilot.

Your second question asks if, under the circumstances given above, the SIC can log time as SIC when the designated pilot in command is flying the aircraft. The answer is yes, as long as the certificate holder is using the SIC as a crewmember instead of exercising the autopilot authorization. In other words, the certificate holder elects not to conduct an IFR flight using the single pilot with a functioning autopilot option, but rather conducts an IFR flight using two qualified pilots. The two pilots are then "required by the regulations under which the flight is conducted", FAR 61.51(c)(3), and the assumption is that the second pilot (SIC) will function as a required crewmember, and SIC time may validly be logged. However, if for some reason another qualified pilot "rides along" and does not function as a crewmember, then second in command time may not be validly logged.

This interpretation has been prepared by Arthur E. Jacobson, Staff Attorney, Operations Law Branch, Regulations and Enforcement Division; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. It has been coordinated with the Manager, Air Transportation Division, and the Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[A Squared]

Scubari,

One thing which should be pointed out about that interpretation; it was issued in 1992. Part 61.was re-written rather extensively in 1996. The interpretation states that the actual PIC may log PIC wile the other guy is sole manipulator. This is no longer true. 61.51(e)(2) now reads: " An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate."

The part in italics was added in 1996. It obviously speaks directly to to the issue of whether the acting PIC may log time while someone else is flying. This change to the regulations make that part of the earlier interpretation invalid. Since that change, the acting PIC may not log time while the "SIC" is logging sole manipulator time. (unless of course it is an operation which requires an ATP or the SIC is required by the regulations or airplane)

So, if you're flying checks in a baron and you have a ridealong SIC, You can't log anything when he is the sole manipulator of the controls.

I bet that not too many of these opoerators selling these "SIC" programs point out this little fact to thier pilots.

 

[A Squared]

Scubabri,

JUst noticed this in an earlier post:

You might also run up against an examiner that knows the rules, and if this time is used for a rating, like your ATP, he might discount it as well, I've heard of that happening as well.

You don't just run the risk of having the examiner discount the time, you run the risk of havine your certificates revoked for falsificateion. If you have time in your logbook which you are not entitled to log, that's falsification. The FAA goes after falsification with a vengance. If you present it to an easygoing DPE, yeah he might say "hey you can't use that" and make you take it off your 8710, if it's a by-the-book FAA inspector, he may very well start an enforcement proceeding against you. The NTSB filse have several cases like this. The FAA *DOES* go after bogus time.

 

[RichardRambone]

That was great info on Pac Wings I really appreciate it. I have about 570 hours and this SIC program sounded great. How long ago did you work there and how much did they pay? My main concern was the cost of living and if they even paid enough to sustain a living just working for them. Also, why didnt you go on to upgrade to Captain? But if you're recommending low time guys find another way maybe I should. My job now gives me flight time in waves but its been really slow lately.

 

[RichardRambone]

Richard,

If you have 570 hours as your info suggests, check out King Airelines in Henderson, NV. They hire low time guys around your time and transition them to 402's later on. Be flexible and willing to move.

Thanks a bunch. PFT is WIGGITY WHACK and Im elated that posts such as these gave me that heads up. I tried looking up King Airlines online but no luck. Do you know a website or someway to look them up? Id truly appreciate any info.