Frankie Avalon

Best explanation I've ever heard:

If the FO called out sick an hour before departure, could the flight still depart as planned with just the PIC and be legal under that part? If yes, the FO isn't a required crewmember in the eyes of the FAA. If not, they are.

Insurance requirements, owner requirements, company procedures, et al, are irrelevant here. For logging time, the FAA only cares whether you're a legally required crew member under the FAR Part which the flight is operating.

Having the correct Op spec helps here because a Part 135 Ops Manual is FAA approved and considered regulatory. You could log legal SIC time in the right seat of a 172 with the proper 135 Op spec, but not in the right seat of some Citation's without it. Seems silly, but them's the breaks.

dera

GOM is ACCEPTED, not APPROVED. Huge difference.

I don't know of an OpSpec that defines that SIC is required, because it is required by the regulation under certain conditions. Circumventing this requirement is what OpSpecs are issued for.

In 99% of cases, even if GOM says two pilots required, the flight could LEGALLY depart with just one pilot, but it is COMPANY POLICY to cancel the flight.

Frankie Avalon

The FAA considers the language regulatory. It's not a huge difference.

In a lot of cases, yeah. But there exist OpSpecs that require an SIC for 135 ops.

Nosireebob. If a 135 GOM requires an SIC, with no provisions for single pilot 135, the flight cannot legally depart 135 without one. Doing so would constitute a violation, as the GOM is FAA blessed and considered regulatory.

dera

State your source please. I haven't found a regulation or legal interpretation that says so, but it does not mean there is no such letter. You clearly know of one.

Also, what nr is that OpSpec that requires an SIC for 135?

GOM specifically is NOT regulatory, every GOM preface I've read says this:

"The procedures and policies contained herein supplement the regulations and are considered
essential to good operational practices and safety. If a question of applicability arises, the FARs shall
prevail."

Frankie Avalon

It's more about choosing to omit 135.105 from the Opspecs. Which admittedly, most operators don't because it grants them flexibility. It would be uncommon. But that further highlights my original point about logging legal SIC time.

As far as a GOM being regulatory or not, I don't have a specific source other than what's burned into my brain from years of 135 and common sense. Why would the FAA go to the trouble of "accepting" a 135 GOM if the operator could simply disregard anything they chose for the sake of convenience? A 135 GOM is like an addendum to the FAR's for the company it's issued to. You can't operate 135 legally without complying with it. That's like the whole reason there is a Part 135. The certificates are issued case-by-case, and subject to compliance with the GOM and the Opspecs contained therein. Of course you aren't going to supersede the FAR's with it. There's a hierarchy of applicability, and FAR's are always on the top. But an FAA accepted GOM for a 135 Op regulates that operation in addition to the ordinary FAR's.

dera

OpSpecs are cookie cutter documents, every OpSpec has a number and they are standardized across the board. They are not custom written to an operator.

You do not "omit 135.105 from the OpSpecs", you have A015 OpSpec that you use with 135.105 to allow passenger carrying IFR without an SIC.

The problem is, you are stating the "commonly believed" way of thought, but it is not supported by any legal interpretations or regulations. It has some merit, but it is not 100% clear how it is interpreted. The problem is the wording in 61.51(f)(2), it only allows for "or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted." - There is no REGULATION under Part 135 that makes SIC a required crewmember apart from 135.101 (and CatII operations etc but they are beyond the scope here). 135.105 with A015 allows but does not mandate operating without SIC (as Tarsa letter clearly says), but this is all for passenger operations. For cargo, SIC is never required by regulations.

Again - you have an opinion, a common one, but it is not an FAA opinion, it is an interpretation on what GOM and regulations are TRYING to say, and that is not a solid foundation when dealing with the FAA.

I think someone should ask for an interpretation of this, because reading the regs to the letter, SIC time is not loggable per 61.51(f) most of the time.

rickair7777

You guys can settle this definitively... write a letter to FAA legal.

But the answer might make you some enemies...

dera

I've thought about it but I agree, you might become the most hated man in 135 world, when everyone refers to your surname as the reason they can't log SIC...

If the letter is worded correctly, it might yield a favorable response. But I don't think I'll risk it.
"Don't ask questions you might not like the answer for".

But I think discussion about this is useful, folks often go with the "common opinion" without understanding the regs (or lack of them) behind those opinions.

At least that way they can be better prepared if someone questions the hours they have logged.