I would think if the insurance company requires two "pilots", you would have to go through some type of training?
Also if the insurance company required it, I would think they would get the FAA to require it somehow in the op's specs?
I think I would personnaly LOG it as SIC turbine since it IS required by the company, and you are being paid for it.?

 

Looking at my post, I have a headache because "I think" alot!

 

I see where you are coming from, and I kinda think the same thing, but I am not taking the chance,
if an airline thinks it is SIC, I will let them tell me that it is SIC

I am not gonig to make the assumption that I can go ahead an log it

it is better to be safe than sorry

 

If you have manipulated any control without a 135.293 ride you have broken FARs. This includes talking on the radios. Part 135 requires a .293 check for all PICs and SICs. Therefore, without a .293 check, accompanied with the required training, there can be no SIC time logged, nor can you do anything for the flight. Under 135, you can log SIC time in a King Air 90 provided it is a passenger-carrying flight under IFR, and you have the required training and checkride. Better be careful advertising to the general public that you have violated FARs, especially since you included where you are flying.

 

Insurance and FAA are two different entities with different requirements. I guess you could keep an "insurance logbook" that includes the time the insurance requires you to be there, but the guidelines for logging that time would be sketchy at best. As far as the FAA is concerned, the requirements to be SIC and log SIC time are spelled out fairly clearly in part 61 and 135. The FAA uses the term "required pilot" in conjunction with the applicable FARs, not insurance requirements.

From 61.51
(f) Logging second-in-command flight time. A person may log second-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person:

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of §61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or

(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.


So the two things that dictate whether or not SIC time can be logged are the aircraft's type certificate and/or the regulations the flight is being conducted under. If you reference 61.55, it tells you the requirements for an SIC, which refers you to the applicable parts of 135, 121, or 91K.

 

Do you suppose he actually got invited to one of the SKW "group interviews" and is mistaking it for a 1 on 1 interview?

 

If the pilot in the left seat is an MEI, then log it as PIC dual received. Completely legal, I think???

If not, you are just along for the ride and I would not be putting that as total time in a logbook. However, it would definitely be worth mentioning at an interview!

 

I never put a single moment in my total logbook.
I have dont the mei dual stuff on the 91 legs

Are they having groups interviews in SLC on the Dec 1st?

 

Technically the FAA only wants to see dual received logged for actual training, for example:

1) A Cert or Rating
2) Currency
3) Aircraft checkout
4) An area or route familiarization


This is not in the regs that I am aware of but has ben clarified by FAA legal opinions in which common-sense reality checks have been applied. Basically you could easily do one or two flights, log it as dual received and it would be really hard to argue against 3) or 4) above.

But if you log gobs of time and numerous flights without an obvious need for 1) or 2), it would be very difficult to make a case that you were engaged in 3) or 4).

Some people do this anyway, but an airline interviewer would likely be aware of the dubious legality of the time in question. A few flights here and there should not raise any flags, but I wouldn't base a large portion of your ME experience on "dual received" of this nature.

 

I cannot disagree with your statment there rick.

I could not imangine that you would be talking of doing this when the flight is being operated under 135 with passengers on board.

I have never read anything that would allow flight training while flying part 135

Can you correct me if my thought on this wrong.


One other question that is not related to the ongoing subject.
If i was a troll, what would I be trolling for.

I do not think this is everyones thought, but made me think

thanks