Thread: Boutique Air
View Single Post
Old 11-10-2021 | 09:12 AM
  #2159  
Av8tr1's Avatar
Av8tr1
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 331
Likes: 1
From: And hold
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke
You have worked for several "airlines" and still don't understand the regulations under which you flew??

A SIC is required for carrying passengers under IFR under Part 135. If an operator wishes to use an autopilot in lieu of a SIC, then the operator needs an operational specification authorization to do so, found in OpSpec A015.

The requirement for a SIC is found in 14 CFR 135.101:

§ 135.101 Second in command required under IFR.

Except as provided in § 135.105, no person may operate an aircraft carrying passengers under IFR unless there is a second in command in the aircraft.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...ection-135.101



You will notice that an exception is provided in 135.105, which is that an autopilot may be used in lieu of a SIC. This is permissible if approved in the Operations Specifications (OpSpecs) issued by the FAA to that certificate holder.

There is no OpSpec requiring a SIC: 135.101 requires the SIC. An OpSpec is required to operate under IFR without the SIC. A second in command may be required by the aircraft type certification, or the rules under which the aircraft is operated. In this case, operations under IFR under Part 135, require a SIC, regardless of whether the aircraft is type certificated for one pilot or not. To get around this requirement, the operator must hold OpSpec A015. I'm surprised that you operated single pilot IFR operations for "three airlines" under Part 135 and do not fully understand this.

§ 135.105 Exception to second in command requirement: Approval for use of autopilot system.

(a) Except as provided in §§ 135.99 and 135.111, unless two pilots are required by this chapter for operations under VFR, a person may operate an aircraft without a second in command, if it is equipped with an operative approved autopilot system and the use of that system is authorized by appropriate operations specifications. No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as a pilot in command under this section of an aircraft operated in a commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter unless that person has at least 100 hours pilot in command flight time in the make and model of aircraft to be flown and has met all other applicable requirements of this part.

(b) The certificate holder may apply for an amendment of its operations specifications to authorize the use of an autopilot system in place of a second in command.

(c) The Administrator issues an amendment to the operations specifications authorizing the use of an autopilot system, in place of a second in command, if -

(1) The autopilot is capable of operating the aircraft controls to maintain flight and maneuver it about the three axes; and

(2) The certificate holder shows, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that operations using the autopilot system can be conducted safely and in compliance with this part.

The amendment contains any conditions or limitations on the use of the autopilot system that the Administrator determines are needed in the interest of safety.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...ection-135.105
The same way everyone else has been caught by this. I relied on the statements from my chief pilot and the training instructors. I am older and wiser now but at the time with my limited experience and knowledge I relied on those who I believed were more knowledgeable to interpret the FARs. I was repeatedly told at different organizations that letters of authorizations existed that I was not privy to, much like these poor kids at BTQ. Again I am older and wiser now and know to trust but verify. We've all be there in starting our careers. Yes I know I am still held accountable for what happens but like most young pilots we learn to do as we are told and not ask questions (one of the things I can't stand about 121) and here this latest situation with BTQ is a perfect example of why that is so bad. The FARs are written for lawyers not pilots. The FAA will say one thing in a FAR then a policy letter will say the exact opposite.
Reply