Cutter Flight Management SIC Position
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 8
Cutter Flight Management SIC Position
Recently came across this posting by Cutter that talks about an SIC/Observation position back in my hometown of PHX. They operate both Part 135 and Part 91, but it looks like the description only states Part 91 operations on three seperate aircraft (PC12, PC24, HA420). I'm at ~550TT as a CFII, with no MEI right now so I still have a few months to go to reach that 750min requirement, but it looks somewhat interesting.
There's four big points for me here on wether I should apply or not:
Pros--
- Due to my comm-multi training, I only have 12.6 hours of multi-time, well below the required 50 for ATP, however if I can log time on the HA420/PC24 I can obtain my missing multi
- I'd be back at home where I'll be with family (and I live very close to DVT and PHX, both of their pilot bases)
Cons--
- Part 91 ops is only stated. Don't want to be flying right seat on Part 135 flights gaining no time
- Nervous that this job might make me look bad when applying to airlines later on
Has anybody been, or is currently hired by this company and can give some info on what this position entails, and whether I should be nervous about the mentioned items or not?
https://cutteraviation.com/job-detail/?id=2045802
There's four big points for me here on wether I should apply or not:
Pros--
- Due to my comm-multi training, I only have 12.6 hours of multi-time, well below the required 50 for ATP, however if I can log time on the HA420/PC24 I can obtain my missing multi
- I'd be back at home where I'll be with family (and I live very close to DVT and PHX, both of their pilot bases)
Cons--
- Part 91 ops is only stated. Don't want to be flying right seat on Part 135 flights gaining no time
- Nervous that this job might make me look bad when applying to airlines later on
Has anybody been, or is currently hired by this company and can give some info on what this position entails, and whether I should be nervous about the mentioned items or not?
https://cutteraviation.com/job-detail/?id=2045802
#2
Unless they have the OpSpec under 135, for an SIC in a single-pilot airplane, then you wouldn't be able to legally log any of your time in the airplane. What's the approved training program to get you up to speed on these airframes? Hopefully they won't tell you to "just show up and it's all OJT"?
This option doesn't exist under part 91.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, and there are many varied opinions on this, a lot of them wrong. Enjoy the read without barfing at a lot of the postings.
If you wanna log it, go right ahead. It's your logbook, do with it what you want. Take a look at the statement above the signature block on each page.
Just be prepared to explain receiving "dual" from an "MEI" in a HondaJet or PC24 with paying passengers onboard, either to a Fed, or some interview board later in your career.
Get your MEI and let someone else legally pay for your accrual of experience.
Run it past the folks at your local FSDO. Ask 5 different ASIs and I guarantee you'll get 5 different answers.
To me, it looks like Cutter is just looking for Meat In The Right Seat and/or cheap labor, to assist guys who are marginal pilots when alone up in the left seat of the cockpit.
"But our insurance requires two pilots, so it's loggable" is a total lie.
cave quid volunt
This option doesn't exist under part 91.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, and there are many varied opinions on this, a lot of them wrong. Enjoy the read without barfing at a lot of the postings.
If you wanna log it, go right ahead. It's your logbook, do with it what you want. Take a look at the statement above the signature block on each page.
Just be prepared to explain receiving "dual" from an "MEI" in a HondaJet or PC24 with paying passengers onboard, either to a Fed, or some interview board later in your career.
Get your MEI and let someone else legally pay for your accrual of experience.
Run it past the folks at your local FSDO. Ask 5 different ASIs and I guarantee you'll get 5 different answers.
To me, it looks like Cutter is just looking for Meat In The Right Seat and/or cheap labor, to assist guys who are marginal pilots when alone up in the left seat of the cockpit.
"But our insurance requires two pilots, so it's loggable" is a total lie.
cave quid volunt
Last edited by Dubh; 01-19-2024 at 06:29 PM. Reason: 'cuz I can't spell
#3
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
An Operations Specifications isn't necessary to require a SIC under Part 135, in a single pilot turobjet multi-engineoperated under IFR, carrying passengers. The SIC is required under the regulation.
An operator requires authorization to do single pilot IFR with an autopilot in lieu of a SIC...
Passenger carrying operations under IFR, under 14 CFR 135:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-135.101
[Doc. No. 28743, 62 FR 42374, Aug. 6, 1997]
Note that it doesn't matter if it's a single pilot airplane. The SIC is still required equipment. An exception is required (via OpSpec) if the operator desires to operate single pilot with passengers.
Operations Specifications authorization required for single-pilot IFR under 135, with autopilot in lieu of the SIC:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-135.105
Having said that, Cutter has a high turnover, and is frequently advertising for pilots. Why might that be?
An operator requires authorization to do single pilot IFR with an autopilot in lieu of a SIC...
Passenger carrying operations under IFR, under 14 CFR 135:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-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.[Doc. No. 28743, 62 FR 42374, Aug. 6, 1997]
Operations Specifications authorization required for single-pilot IFR under 135, with autopilot in lieu of the SIC:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-135.105
(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.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135–3, 45 FR 7542, Feb. 4, 1980; Amdt. 135–58, 60 FR 65939, Dec. 20, 1995]
§ 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.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135–3, 45 FR 7542, Feb. 4, 1980; Amdt. 135–58, 60 FR 65939, Dec. 20, 1995]
#4
Recently came across this posting by Cutter that talks about an SIC/Observation position back in my hometown of PHX. They operate both Part 135 and Part 91, but it looks like the description only states Part 91 operations on three seperate aircraft (PC12, PC24, HA420). I'm at ~550TT as a CFII, with no MEI right now so I still have a few months to go to reach that 750min requirement, but it looks somewhat interesting.
At the end of the day, there is missing information here to help make an informed decision. What do you want your end goal to be? You state you are a CFII, are you currently instructing? Are you no longer satisfied with that role or have you been stung by shiny jet syndrome? That is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself so long as you understand what you want your path to be and you are working toward your end goal.
If your end goal is to be PHX based working corporate, want to get your feet wet with this SIC position, and the pay is comfortable enough, go for it. But understand it will likely slow you down in the long run from building flight time needed to apply to the regionals/majors.
#5
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
A second in command isn't a piece of lint on the other seat: the second in command is the person who assists the pilot incommand in normal operations, generally flying every other leg. The Second in command is also required equipment (notice the word "command'). When the PIC has an allergic reaction to the bee in the air vent (I've seen it happen), while you're preparing to fly an approach to minimums in convective weather with strong, gusting conditions at a mountain airport, or in the ice and you've just lost an engine, are you ready to do it at twelve hours of multi engine time, and be the new, acting pilot in command?
Shiny jet syndrome only gets you so far.
Shiny jet syndrome only gets you so far.
#6
As you can see, the many opinions and arguments, as predicted, are rearing their ugly heads.
Some IAW the regs, some "hanging out in" the gray areas of the regs, and some flat out wrong.
To each their own.
Good on you for raising the question. You have an inate sence of "this doesn't seem right".
Ply your own path, dude.
If it smells like cologne, leave it alone. If it smells like fish, it's a dish.
If it smells like low tide, give it a ride.
From a dude that got burned on this in the 90s, I'd walk away from this.
PM, if y'all want. I was in your shoes once.
#7
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
I offere no opinion on the regulation, but the regulation itself, and it's not subject to opinion. It's very clear, backed up by a plethora of FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation.
So far as asking an inspector at the FSDO level, the FSDO is never authorized to interpret the regulation. Not a statement of opinion. When it comes to the regulation, one either knows it, or one does not.
So far as asking an inspector at the FSDO level, the FSDO is never authorized to interpret the regulation. Not a statement of opinion. When it comes to the regulation, one either knows it, or one does not.
#8
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2023
Posts: 6
An Operations Specifications isn't necessary to require a SIC under Part 135, in a single pilot turobjet multi-engineoperated under IFR, carrying passengers. The SIC is required under the regulation.
An operator requires authorization to do single pilot IFR with an autopilot in lieu of a SIC...
Passenger carrying operations under IFR, under 14 CFR 135:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-135.101
Note that it doesn't matter if it's a single pilot airplane. The SIC is still required equipment. An exception is required (via OpSpec) if the operator desires to operate single pilot with passengers.
Operations Specifications authorization required for single-pilot IFR under 135, with autopilot in lieu of the SIC:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-135.105
Having said that, Cutter has a high turnover, and is frequently advertising for pilots. Why might that be?
An operator requires authorization to do single pilot IFR with an autopilot in lieu of a SIC...
Passenger carrying operations under IFR, under 14 CFR 135:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-135.101
Note that it doesn't matter if it's a single pilot airplane. The SIC is still required equipment. An exception is required (via OpSpec) if the operator desires to operate single pilot with passengers.
Operations Specifications authorization required for single-pilot IFR under 135, with autopilot in lieu of the SIC:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-135.105
Having said that, Cutter has a high turnover, and is frequently advertising for pilots. Why might that be?
Part 135 regulations have nothing to do with a Part 91 job.
#9
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,926
Reading comprehension is key. Try to keep up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
takingmessages
Flight Schools and Training
8
07-07-2018 11:11 PM