Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2007, 06:38 PM   #1  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 6
Default Airnet's SIC program

I was just wondering how Airnet's SIC program works. According to their website, it sounds like if you don't meet the 135 minimums you can participate in the SIC program and build time and then move on to PIC when you meet the 135 mins. However, after reading some of the FARs and reading the following article from AOPA, I'm a little confused as to how that works.



The case that we are reporting involves a hapless pilot who had been planning his entire life for a career in aviation, following his father, who is a retired airline pilot. The son was a commercial pilot and flight instructor, supporting himself and his young child (he had custody) by giving flight instruction. At the same time, in order to advance his career, he was working as a part-time pilot for a company that provided both on-demand charter service and aircraft management. The company had four aircraft: two single-engine Beech Bonanzas, a twin-engine Beech Baron, and a twin-engine Beech King Air. The pilot was flying as captain on the Bonanzas. He was also receiving training from the company to upgrade to captain on the Baron. At the same time, with the help of the company, he was working on getting his airline transport pilot certificate.

The pilot got paid for all of the flying he did with the company. Not only did he get paid to captain the Bonanzas on revenue flights; the company also paid him to fly in the company's King Air and Baron. On the twins, his job was to observe company operations on Part 135 flights, to prepare him to upgrade. On those trips, he would fly with the person who was the company's training captain and check airman. He would be a right-seat observer on the Part 135 legs, and he would receive flight instruction on the non-Part 135 legs when there were no passengers. Even on the Part 135 legs, he would help out by operating the radios, helping with the charts, giving passenger briefings, and the like.

How he logged this time is what got him in trouble with the FAA. His practice was to record all the paid time he flew for the company on his kneeboard. He would later periodically record the time in his logbook. He believed he was allowed to log all of the time for which he was paid for flying with the company. He couldn't see anywhere in the regulations where he couldn't list it toward total flight time, so long as he didn't claim any of the time as pilot in command unless he actually was. He did originally claim some time as second in command because the company listed him as second in command on the company manifests for the flights. In two entries, amounting to less than eight hours, he logged this second-in-command time with explanatory notes such as "charter crew concept."

But then he was told by the company's principal operations inspector (POI) that the flight could not be logged as second in command because he was technically not a required flight crewmember on the Part 135 flights and the company was not approved to train for second-in-command duties. So, he crossed out the two second-in-command entries but still listed the total time. After that, while he did not log the time as second in command, in the remarks section he recorded that he was "acting" as second in command. He felt that since he was an observer, performing functions and being paid by the company, it was proper. He saw nothing in the regulations that prevented it. The company knew how he was logging the time.

Here is how his logged flight time was called into question. He was ready to upgrade to captain on the Baron. He was scheduled with the company's FAA POI to take a checkride in the Baron for the addition of multiengine privileges under Part 135. The company, as a favor to him, asked the FAA inspector to give him the practical test for an airline transport pilot certificate at the same time, using the company Baron. He presented himself to the FAA inspector with his application and logbook to take the certification test. On his application (FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application), he claimed 1,926 hours of total pilot time, 1,846 hours of pilot-in-command time, and 598 hours of cross-country pilot-in-command time. These times came right out of his logbook and included the time he flew for the company.

The inspector, in reviewing the logbooks to confirm the flight time, noticed that some of the entries showed time in multiengine aircraft, some in fairly sophisticated multiengine aircraft (the King Air), and some indicated that the time was flown under Part 135 or annotated with the word charter. The inspector knew that the pilot had not yet been qualified to fly multiengine under Part 135. The inspector questioned the entries.

After some discussion with the inspector, including a review of Part 61, the pilot became convinced that he had been mistaken in how he recorded some of the time. So, he made changes to the entries in his logbook to comport with what the inspector told him he could log under Part 61. Even though none of the disputed time was necessary for the ATP or Part 135 multiengine check, that didn't solve his problem. The checkride was suspended. The FAA ultimately charged him with a violation of FAR 61.59. The FAA, on an emergency basis (an immediate grounding), revoked all of his FAA certificates, including his commercial pilot and flight instructor certificates. The FAA charges focused on 10 entries in his logbook, amounting to some 23 hours of pilot time�all paid time, flying for the company.

Was the pilot padding his time, or more important, was he guilty of fraud and intentional falsification in violation of FAR 61.59? The FAA believed so, and so did the NTSB. The pilot appealed the case to the NTSB. The NTSB sustained the FAA charges as well as the revocation of all of his certificates. Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome of this case, it is a dramatic illustration of what can happen to a pilot who, innocently or otherwise, pads his or her flight time. Pilots need to know about it.
teejay is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 07:59 PM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pilotpip's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 2,925
Default

I'm not sure exactly. If they put you in the Lear, it's totally legit because that aircraft requres two pilots. In the bonanza or caravan you really can't log it unless they have a two crewmember requirement in their certificate, which I'm pretty sure they don't. You could also log PIC if you're sole manipulator on flights that aren't operated 135 (IE reposition flights).

I had some questions for them and sent an email about a year and a half ago. They were answered pretty fast. I'd suggest doing that. Airnet is a good company, and one of the great things about this program is that you're paid. Many companies throw people in the right seat and charge them.
Pilotpip is offline  
Old 10-21-2007, 09:27 PM   #3  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 30
Default

From an old Airapps article:
Quote:
AirNet offers a paid time-building option to pilots who do not yet qualify to fly as pilot in command in Part 135 operations. Under this arrangement, time-builders go through the same initial training program, but fly in the right seat with a captain-qualified pilot on one of AirNet’s piston twin routes until they build enough total and PIC time to take over the left seat responsibilities. Washka says pilots applying to the second-in-command program need about 900 total hours to be competitive for hiring.
Quote:
“That would be excellent, because then it would take about three months to build enough time to become an AirNet captain and we think that’s optimal,” he says.
Inevitably, when AirNet’s SIC program is discussed, some pilots become confused about how to log the time. Washka recognizes the issue and says AirNet received so many questions on the logging of flight time “that we actually went back and sat down with the FAA in Washington to get interpretations and make sure we’re doing everything right.
“In a nutshell, what they said was not only can pilots log time in the right seat of our aircraft, but they can log it as SIC time because we require an SIC to be there,” he explains. “It used to be that we had them logging only their PIC time and the other time was just added to total time. Well, the FAA came back and said, ‘Look, even though the aircraft does not require a second crew member; because of the rules you operate under and your operations specs, you can assign a pilot to a plane and they can log their time as SIC time.’
“When a time builder is on board, as long as he’s trained and checked in the plane, he can log the time he’s actually flying the plane as PIC. If he’s not flying the plane, but acting as a crew member, he can log it as SIC time,” Washka states. “It’s totally legal and it’s important to understand. There’s no gray area in the logging of flight time as far as AirNet and the FAA are concerned.”
Washka also emphasizes that when AirNet hires a low-time pilot, he or she is immediately added to the company’s full-time pilot seniority list upon successfully completing initial training.
“It used to be they had to build up enough time to become a captain before they moved up to the full-time seniority list, so this change is a great perq for a pilot,” he says. “Their seniority is only determined by the day they pass their initial checkride, so if they hustle and do a good job, it can really pay off later when they’re higher on the list.”
As far as I know, SICs are put in the Baron.
Berkut is offline  
Old 10-22-2007, 04:58 AM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyingDog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 104
Default

Sic program Sics are not in the jet - It's like a farm club system as far as I can tell... Airnet is a great place for a low time guy who wants to be a killer ifr pilot and get to fly the year.

From what I can tell - Airnet is doing the low time guys a favor letting them build time.
FlyingDog is offline  
Old 10-22-2007, 12:23 PM   #5  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 22,797
Default

You have to be VERY careful with such "opportunities" to log SIC time

Ultimately YOU (not the company) are responsible for determing what you can log and logging it. Feds, DPE's, and employers are not stupid...they know all the tricks and will catch you if you try the grey area.

Normally, you can only log SIC time in an airplane that is type certified for TWO pilots. Make sure you have the required part 91 training for airplanes that require it. Also, certain airplanes are certified for both single and dual pilot...if the airplane is certified for both, you can always CHOSE to fly two pilot, even if the PIC is single-pilot qualified.

The only exception to this is that you may log SIC in an airplane certified for only one pilot IF (and only if) the airplane is operated under an FAA operating specification which requires an SIC for that airplane and that operation. This is normal in 135 freight operations. But ONLY an FAA OPSPEC can authorize SIC in a single-pilot airplane...insurance requirements and/or "company policy" DO NOT COUNT. In order to do this you will almost certainly need to take a 135 SIC checkride...if you have not done that, it's probably not legal.

You could however ride along on a 135 flight which involves a 91 repositioning leg and fly the repo leg as 91 PIC. Just make sure the other pilot is not ALSO logging PIC in that case...part 91 = one pilot only.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-22-2007, 12:38 PM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
IlliniPilot99's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 521
Default

sic = worthless
IlliniPilot99 is offline  
Old 10-22-2007, 05:24 PM   #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FlyingDog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 104
Default

Sic is worthless in the above application if you where trying to log it for any other job - Rick is right as always...

But if you are young and want to fly left seat in a lear in probably 3 years (1 year sic prop - 1 year Pic Props - 1 year sic jet)

It would be a pretty cool job for a young single guy - I hitched a ride in the 35 and saw the sort and the facilities and I was impressed -

Maintenance seemed great - people where great.

I am really not a recruiter - just had a good time riding a long.

You could do a lot worse.
FlyingDog is offline  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:34 PM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
detpilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Trying not to crash
Posts: 1,019
Default

From the way they explained it to me, you log the PIC time (and actually fly) on any routes that can be flown VFR (the 135 req's are only for IFR flights), as well as any dead-head routes that are not under the 135 cert. You can never log SIC in the Baron, as it is a single pilot aircraft (With the notable exceptions above).
detpilot is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 10:02 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Iflyfr8's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: LJ35 PIC
Posts: 139
Default

Okay, this isn't just something AirNet came up with on their own. It's something they have worked on closely with the FAA and their approval, as a Part 135 company, to do.

Part 135 Companies answer to their POI (Principal Operator Inspector) and together they will occasionally "make their own" rules. Having said that it doesn't mean they can do what ever they want. There is a chain of command structure. Company answers to the POI, the POI answers to the FAA.

For example. As long as you do what the company teaches and don't deviate from Operation specifications, Operation manual, flight profiles (which all have been approved by the POI) and so on, you are in good shape. Let's say that some "Mr. FAA" guy ramps you and claim what you are doing is wrong and he wants to "get you". As long as you follow Company established procedures you are untouchable (in theory, anyway). The Company and the POI might get in trouble, but not you!
Iflyfr8 is offline  
Old 10-27-2007, 04:17 PM   #10  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 22,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iflyfr8 View Post
Okay, this isn't just something AirNet came up with on their own. It's something they have worked on closely with the FAA and their approval, as a Part 135 company, to do.

Part 135 Companies answer to their POI (Principal Operator Inspector) and together they will occasionally "make their own" rules. Having said that it doesn't mean they can do what ever they want. There is a chain of command structure. Company answers to the POI, the POI answers to the FAA.

For example. As long as you do what the company teaches and don't deviate from Operation specifications, Operation manual, flight profiles (which all have been approved by the POI) and so on, you are in good shape. Let's say that some "Mr. FAA" guy ramps you and claim what you are doing is wrong and he wants to "get you". As long as you follow Company established procedures you are untouchable (in theory, anyway). The Company and the POI might get in trouble, but not you!

If you're going to do something sketchy based on this premise, make ABSOLUTELY certain it is in the OPSPEC and signed by the POI. Company training materials, memos, bulletins, verbal instructions, etc DO NOT MEAN JACK if you violate the FAR's. The ONLY thing that will supersede FARs is a valid OPSPEC.
rickair7777 is offline  
 
 
 

 
Closed Thread
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NetJets Interview...SIC Time Logged N636DL Fractional 10 12-25-2007 11:51 AM
NetJets Interview...SIC Time Logged N636DL Fractional 0 10-18-2007 02:10 PM
MESA's Pilot Program (Uh Oh!) Ellen Regional 37 10-12-2007 08:08 PM
Atp Cfi Program Only For Future Employees Flyboyrw Flight Schools and Training 17 08-11-2007 03:20 PM
Riddle CAPT program grads WatchThis! Regional 70 03-10-2006 09:27 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:13 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1