Acting as SIC in part 135. Advice?
12-04-2015, 02:44 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Position: Yes
Posts: 139
I'm guessing you're working on an island rich in history, with a really long runway that's owned by the gov't that has a plaque dedicated to a fat man and a little boy.
I've been there, done that. What you're describing is pretty messed up. Strong arming new guys to the industry because they know you're a long, long way from home, and the POI is even further away.
Stand your ground.
I've been there, done that. What you're describing is pretty messed up. Strong arming new guys to the industry because they know you're a long, long way from home, and the POI is even further away.
Stand your ground.
12-04-2015, 03:51 PM
#14
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by bajthejino
I'm guessing you're working on an island rich in history, with a really long runway that's owned by the gov't that has a plaque dedicated to a fat man and a little boy.
I've been there, done that. What you're describing is pretty messed up. Strong arming new guys to the industry because they know you're a long, long way from home, and the POI is even further away.
Stand your ground.
I've been there, done that. What you're describing is pretty messed up. Strong arming new guys to the industry because they know you're a long, long way from home, and the POI is even further away.
Stand your ground.
Pm me and we can confirm
12-04-2015, 03:53 PM
#15
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 13
Yes, I'm willing to move for a job. I'm from the northeast (CT/NYC area) and would prefer to find something in that area though.
Anyone know of anything? I should have 500 hours by end of January, if I can take it here that long.
Anyone know of anything? I should have 500 hours by end of January, if I can take it here that long.
12-04-2015, 06:07 PM
#16
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,018
Originally Posted by Awesomebob
Yes, the airplanes have functional AP. I'm not sure about our op specs. But I'm positive an SIC is not required by the company, insurance or anyone.
In the past, all our ops flew single pilot. The company using SICs is a relatively new thing. But the big boss was pretty serious about it. Sent out a company wide email about standardizing the roll of the "first officer".
In this email were a list of responsibilities for the FO, including all pre-flight duties, ensuring the proper fueling, baggage loading etc.
Basically they are requiring us to be crew members in the 135 legs, but here's where it gets sneaky. On the flight manifest, we are listed as " front passenger.". Not pilot or crew member.
I'm pretty sure this is how they get away with it. If the FAA were ever to question them, they can just tell them we are pax.
Seems to me I'm in a very difficult position with little leverage.
Obviously the company is lying about there operation and forcing their employees to illegally act as crew members. That's what I know for a fact.
In the past, all our ops flew single pilot. The company using SICs is a relatively new thing. But the big boss was pretty serious about it. Sent out a company wide email about standardizing the roll of the "first officer".
In this email were a list of responsibilities for the FO, including all pre-flight duties, ensuring the proper fueling, baggage loading etc.
Basically they are requiring us to be crew members in the 135 legs, but here's where it gets sneaky. On the flight manifest, we are listed as " front passenger.". Not pilot or crew member.
I'm pretty sure this is how they get away with it. If the FAA were ever to question them, they can just tell them we are pax.
Seems to me I'm in a very difficult position with little leverage.
Obviously the company is lying about there operation and forcing their employees to illegally act as crew members. That's what I know for a fact.
Your thread title is inaccurate and a bit of a lie. It suggests that you're acing as SIC under 135, and that is clearly not the case.
Whether you wear a pilot uniform or dress as Donald Duck is irrelevant, save for any trademark infringement for the duck. It doesn't make you a crew member.
Logging flight time is irrelevant.
You're a low time pilot who has a job flying. What is your problem, exactly?
You've clearly stated that you're not a crew member and not listed as one. You've also ended your post by stating that you're forced to illegally act as a crew member. Your comments are directly opposed, and one is not the truth.
Do you really not understand this, or do you have an ulterior motive?
12-04-2015, 08:11 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
The only problem I see with the latest analysis is that if you are sitting there, in the cockpit, and you touch any of the controls, you are acting as a pilot for the company. This means you have to be trained for the position in which you are serving. That part is required by regulation.
12-04-2015, 11:01 PM
#19
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,018
Originally Posted by PerfInit
Go easy, JB.. He's still on the steep incline of the learning curve. We were all there at one time in our careers... Don't over-analyze the situation....
He stated that he knows for a fact that his employer is "lying about the operation" and "forcing their employees to act as illegal crew members." He also provided enough information to show that this isn't the case . All in the same post.
Which is true? Did he lie about the details he provided, or did he lie about knowing for a fact that the company is "lying" and "forcing their employees to act as illegal crewmembers?" It can't be both.
12-05-2015, 11:29 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Position: E175 FO
Posts: 114
RUN AWAY. RUN AWAY. RUN AWAY. And on your way out, blow the whistle. FAA has an anonymous whistleblower program, I'm sure someone will have already mentioned this.
Although JohnBurke does bring up a good point: if you're manifested as a passenger, don't have a 135.293/297 check...then you might not be in any sort of regulatory danger.
If the company is just paying you to look pretty and that's all you're technically qualified to do on that aircraft...then at least you're getting paid to sit and get.
My guess is you're being paid to look pretty in your snazzy uniform. Lots of CE500/King Air/Navajo/Chieftain/421/414 gigs out there pay an "SIC" to sit up front, even though the PIC is single-pilot typed and an SIC is not otherwise required by company ops-spec, the part under which the flight is operating, or ICAO law, in which case you can't log the time.
You are a trained professional. If they choose not to treat you as one, leave. Someone else will.
Although JohnBurke does bring up a good point: if you're manifested as a passenger, don't have a 135.293/297 check...then you might not be in any sort of regulatory danger.
If the company is just paying you to look pretty and that's all you're technically qualified to do on that aircraft...then at least you're getting paid to sit and get.
My guess is you're being paid to look pretty in your snazzy uniform. Lots of CE500/King Air/Navajo/Chieftain/421/414 gigs out there pay an "SIC" to sit up front, even though the PIC is single-pilot typed and an SIC is not otherwise required by company ops-spec, the part under which the flight is operating, or ICAO law, in which case you can't log the time.
You are a trained professional. If they choose not to treat you as one, leave. Someone else will.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
