New Minimums For All
03-08-2009, 03:38 PM
#132
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,611
If the PFT pilot is logging 91 legs only then I see that, but a non-135 qualified pilot logging "sole manipulator" PIC on a live 135 leg goes against everything I've ever heard or known about 135 operations.
03-08-2009, 04:11 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: BEECH 1900 PIC
Posts: 117
Yeah, actually I would like to see a copy of such a LoA. Also be curious to know the company, FSDO, and inspector's name authorizing such nonsense.
If the PFT pilot is logging 91 legs only then I see that, but a non-135 qualified pilot logging "sole manipulator" PIC on a live 135 leg goes against everything I've ever heard or known about 135 operations.
If the PFT pilot is logging 91 legs only then I see that, but a non-135 qualified pilot logging "sole manipulator" PIC on a live 135 leg goes against everything I've ever heard or known about 135 operations.
Who said he was non qualified? Receives the same training as PIC, takes same checkride as PIC. Only requirement he does not meet is the time requirements to "ACT" as PIC of a 135 on demand cargo operation. As long as an authorized company PIC is sitting next to him, he can not only manipulate the controls, he can log this time as PIC per the FAA's authorization of the program. By the way, this program has been in affect for the last 14 years on a 135 certificate thats 40 years old. No offense, just because you have not seen or heard of such a thing, does not mean it does not exist, or is not legal. Hate to burst your bubble.
03-08-2009, 04:21 PM
#135
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,611
Originally Posted by johnnysnow
No offense, just because you have seen or heard of such a thing, does not mean it does not exist, or is not legal. Hate to burst your bubble.
With that said, I still don't see how a pilot so much as legally log PIC on a live 135 leg if they don't met the requirements of 135.243, even if they have successfully completed 135.293/.297/.299 rides. Such authority would have to be written into their OpSpecs, wouldn't it?
I know Airnet has an SIC program...but those people aren't logging PIC are they?
Feel free to PM the name of that company...I enjoy learning new things!
03-08-2009, 07:29 PM
#136
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 717 FO
Posts: 28
With that said, I still don't see how a pilot so much as legally log PIC on a live 135 leg if they don't met the requirements of 135.243, even if they have successfully completed 135.293/.297/.299 rides. Such authority would have to be written into their OpSpecs, wouldn't it?
I know Airnet has an SIC program...but those people aren't logging PIC are they?
I hope that helps.
03-08-2009, 07:46 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Cessna 152 Captain
Posts: 695
03-08-2009, 08:01 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: I am the Stig
Posts: 281
At Airnet the Baron SIC's were absolutely logging PIC on the 135 legs. Johnnysnow is right. They go through the same training and take the same check ride as the PIC qualified folks. Because they had passed that check ride they are able to manipulate the controls on 135 legs and can log PIC according to part 61.51 (e). They don't log any time as SIC because the baron is only a single pilot airplane.
I hope that helps.
I hope that helps.
"no certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command of an aircraft under IFR unless that person--
(1) Holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that aircraft; and
(2) Has had at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 500 hours of cross country flight time, 100 hours of night flight time, and 75 hours of actual or simulated instrument time at least 50 hours of which were in actual flight; and"
Also, I believe there is a reg that if you have a something along the lines of a postal contract, there must be an operating autopilot OR and SIC on the aircraft. Can't remember where that's at exactly, it's been a long time since I had to look at it.
03-08-2009, 08:09 PM
#139
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 45
Now, before you start beating me over the head with a hammer, I am in no way advocating the hiring of low time pilots. I'm not necessarily against it either. I'm just saying it's been done before. The difference is of course the era.
Sixty years ago, an 18 year old was a man. He was expected to be hard working , responsible, and full of character. My grandfather who was part of that generation, held a full time job, while attending high school, and enlisted in the military after graduation. Today he would be considered an over achiever. Back then he was normal. Today, young people rarely have these 3 traits together, if they have them at all. To all you younger folks out there who don't think this applies to you, than maybe it doesn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe your that exception, or maybe your not. I'm inclined to think as a general rule, the later is true.
Sixty years ago, an 18 year old was a man. He was expected to be hard working , responsible, and full of character. My grandfather who was part of that generation, held a full time job, while attending high school, and enlisted in the military after graduation. Today he would be considered an over achiever. Back then he was normal. Today, young people rarely have these 3 traits together, if they have them at all. To all you younger folks out there who don't think this applies to you, than maybe it doesn't. There are exceptions to every rule, and maybe your that exception, or maybe your not. I'm inclined to think as a general rule, the later is true.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
