AwesomeBob,

Hang in there dude.. Most of the folks here truly are tryng to help you. Question: How many passenger seats (excluding the first row pilot seats) are installed on the PA-31 you are flying?

 

I'm not a management type. I'm someone who read the original posters comments and asked him to cite the regulation that he knows for a fact is broken.

Put up, or shut up. He came here and introduced it. Ball's in his court.

He says it's illegal. Knows it for a fact. What regulation has been violated?

One had better not be announcing publicly that one knows something is illegal, if one doesn't really know.

He says it's a fact. State the fact. It's very simple.

 

AB -

If you are performing the pre-flight, ordering, conducting, or supervising the fueling/refueling operations, and actively participating in using checklists during any portion of the P135 operations, and/or if you have any involvement in briefing the rest of the passengers on safety procedures, then you need to have been trained by the operator in their P135 operations.

 

OP:

It would be productive for the conversation if you described in detail (it doesn't have to be an essay) what you average day consists of. Do you do anything other than act as SIC on the PA-31? (PIC on something else?)

What, EXACTLY, are they making you do? Although JB "tone" may be rather confrontational, I believe he is asking some of the right questions.

When you say "I do, in fact, operate the aircraft in the right seat. I seem to be given full SIC responsibilities"; are you saying you manipulate flight controls? Do you TOUCH ANYTHING? Do you preflight, postflight the aircraft? Do you handle the radios?

The FAA has recently changed its policy regarding enforcement. If they are truly encouraging, convincing, coercing, etc; you to break the law, then you really do need to go to the FAA about it, they're not going to throw the book at you.

 

Regulation is clear. These are the same rules why you can't let a passenger operate your airplane under revenue service, whether they are a rated pilot or not. There are more affected regulations than just these, such as hour requirements for SICs for on-demand, all the regulations that say "crewmember", IFR and autopilot, etc., but these are a start:

And if they are having him flip switches, run checklists, there is little legal wiggle-room to claim he is not acting as a pilot and SIC for the company. 135.323 requires them to be trained in their duties and roles they are serving in, this requires training records, syllabus, etc. Unless there was information that operation was contrary to 135.115 was being conducted, it would be left out.

 

Actually, you don't. One need not be a trained crew member to handle baggage. One need not be a trained crewmember to fuel or observe fueling. Lineboys for the company with no pilot training at all can and often do fill those functions.

Thus far, the original poster has not cited any aspect of his job which violates regulation. Perhaps he will do so, by providing more explicit detail, as well as address the regulation which he knows is being broken "for a fact," but thus far he has refused.

For the most part, it is, as are the copious interpretations that attend, but thus far none have been cited that are being violated, or insufficient detail has been given to establish violation, despite the original posters assurance that he knows it "for a fact."

Thus far the original poster has provided nothing to establish a violation of the regulation. I quoted two of them two you; the most pertinent, neither of which has the original poster violated, insofar as what he's given us.

At no point has he indicated that he "operates" the airplane, and because he's not acting as SIC under 135, but is in fact manifested as a passenger, issues such as his hour requirements, ad nauseum, are irrelevant.

"If" they are having him do these things? He would have to tell us that he's doing these things, wouldn't he? Speculate and assume all you want; given the original poster's assurance that he knows "for a fact" that the company is operating illegally, and given his broad public declaration of this illegal activity (to which he has now testified), one would think he would at least know which regulations have been violated, or be able to say what he's doing or "forced" to do) that violates the regulations that he can't cite.

135.323 is irrelevant if he's not serving as SIC under 135, and if he were serving as SIC, then the company would be poorly informed to list him as a passenger.

 

I didn't say anything about handling baggage - and supervising the actual refueling process is only ONE part of what I detailed in my post. If this manifested PASSENGER is the one ordering the fuel - then yes - he does need to be trained and he would be performing crew duties - I'm sure you would agree with this.

As for what duties the OP might be performing - he has been careful not to include many details because he is obviously not aware of the the *new* FAA slant towards enforcement as he stated:
You chose to look at his posts from a different angel than others on the thread. Doesn't make your view the only correct view. As you point out JB - without further specific details on his so-called duties - we are not sure of what his actions entail so that makes your view as speculative as any other poster.

Personally - I choose to take what he has said and infer that the company is in fact having him perform SIC/crewmember duties:
You say:
Actually he did - post #24. Let's assume for the fun of it that you and he both have the same definition of 'operate'
Now even without him including any more detail in his future posts if he choses too, that is enough for me to make my speculative assumptions. You are free to speculate that he only loads luggage and watches the fueling like a lineboy.

 

No, I don't agree.

Joe Blow employee can do his job, including ordering fuel, without needing to be a pilot. Ordering fuel, pumping fuel, handling fuel, sampling fuel, or even making fuel calculations doesn't require one to be a trained crew member. He's a company employee. Perhaps the company wants him to ride along, get exposure, get experience, throw bags, take care of fuel, hold a passengers hand, or make shadow puppets for the inflight entertainment. None of those are regulatory violations.

He was careful enough to include no details whosoever that indicate that he or the company has violated a regulation. He's careful enough to refuse to identify the regulation that he alleges that he knows "for a fact" to have been violated.

He's gone out of his way to not be careful at all when it comes to accusing his employer of "forcing" employees and operating "illegally."

He won't identify the duties, and doesn't seem to have much knowledge or understanding of what those might be, or the regulations that prescribe them.

I don't think the original poster understands the term. My definition would be in harmony with that of the FAA.

The original poster, after howling long and loud about the illegal crew duties he's forced to endure and the illegal operation of the company, can't or wont' cite a regulation, and seems offended by any reference to it. "Put down the FAR/AIM and relax." He says. He's not qualified to be a day VFR 135 pilot...at three hundred hours, he doesn't sound informed at all. His idea of what it means to operate? I make no assumptions.

I don't speculate. Thus far he's stated nothing that indicates a violation of the regulation.

Again, what regulation has he or the violated? Cite it.

He states that he knows it for a fact. State the fact.

 

If the company wants him to ride along and not touch anything on the aircraft, ok, but you're going to have a tough time selling that to a judge when you put him in the airplane wearing 3 stripes, performing checklists, preflight and aircraft operations. Rampers even need to be trained and have training records for their duties. The guy is saying that he has been told or it is expected that he performs crewmember duties in the aircraft. Again, you can not let your passengers operate your aircraft, that is contrary to the regulations.
Actually, he did mention the duties, also to include all of preflight if I remember correctly.
So if I do something bad to you, unless you can cite the regulation it doesn't matter?

 

You are certainly welcome to your opinion.

You're right JB - he doesn't have to be a "pilot", he has to be an employee properly trained in P135 operations; and he certainly can't be a passenger as he states and listed as such on the manifest.
Are you purposefully playing blind or just enjoying being the outrigger in this thread?

I'm sure that this young inexperienced pilot, as you point out, doesn't know the FAR forwards and backwards as; but he can smell something fishy, which is more than you seem to be able to do in this case.

You make as many assumptions as anyone in this thread because you don't have a single bit of information beyond what any of us have JB.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.