Airline Pilot Forums
Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the
aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and
job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.
12-14-2011, 05:33 AM
Is it possible to serve as a required crew member on a part 91 repo flight on an EMB-120 (26,000lbs, turbo prop for those who don't know) with company employees on board, without having any formal training on the aircraft? and just having a ATP Multi engine license? the PIC is typed in the aircraft, and has loads of experience. 61.55 leads me to believe its not, however I'm being told it happens all the time...I can't find in the regs how it is allowed...can someone point me in the right direction?
Tom a Hawk
12-14-2011, 11:55 AM
I think the direction that you need to go is the local FSDO. They should be able to guide you and hopefully your employer in the right direction if they havent done this before. 61.55 defines the process for getting you qualified to be an SIC. not a liscense to hop in with no experience or have the pic just toss you the flight manual the day before the flight. Generally the way this goes for operators that do this frequently is they train you on the ground stuff and take you on EMPTY legs for your training and takeoffs and landings. then you go to the fsdo in person with your training records/logbook/sign offs. Good luck!
12-14-2011, 06:07 PM
You meet the requirements of the exemption listed in 61.55(g)(you hold at least a commercial license, and it's a ferry flight), which exempt you from the requirements of 61.55(b)(2), so only the requirements of 61.55(b)(1) apply.
If the flight remains in the US, you do not even need the SIC type rating, just the familiarization requirements of 61.55(b)(1).
12-15-2011, 06:28 AM
I would question the repo flight truely being pt91. More info is needed. What I mean is if the plane is being repositioned to do a live leg then I believe it would still be considered a pt135 leg. Now add passengers to the mix and you definately can not do a training flight which I assume is the purpose? I would make darn sure its actually a PT91 leg in the FAA interpretation. However, the real question here is not about legalities, but rather safety. The Brasilia is a busy airplane and while training in the plane can be accomplished safely with some ground training first, it should be empty legs. Even if you could legally do your proposed flight and I am not sure you can), I think it would show a lack of judgment to jump in the bro untrained with passengers on board. That being said, since you hold an ATP you know what I am talking about when I say that just because it may be legal, or "happens all the time", does not necessarily make it prudent to do so.
12-15-2011, 02:46 PM
Not safe, not in that airplane.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO