Boutique doing Boutique things

Boris Badenov said:
You obviously know more about it than I do, and I'm sure you're right, in the aggregate. But we all know the Hoover story. If some dude makes you his Mission, yeah, you might win in the end, but at what cost? Which is I'm sure the entire POINT of persecuting famous people, to keep the rest of our heads down and unwilling to fight back. Well, it works. *shrug*. As average-at-best as I may be at flying airplanes, you really don't want to see me try my hand at anything else, and neither do I.
Click to expand...

hah! I’m learning the “anything else” lesson right now.

still, the feds are mostly just people, weird people sometimes, but people - and all of them like process to an absurdist degree. Once you learn their rule book you’re free to throw it at them.
One of my favorite things outside of the cockpit I did was tell my POI, “actually we can do that” then quoted 135 and the 8900 at him. He grimaced and said, “well sure but I don’t like it.”

You don’t always have to fight, and you have to pick your battles, but when they’re wrong, and you can prove it, you should.
 
ppragman said:
hah! I’m learning the “anything else” lesson right now.

still, the feds are mostly just people, weird people sometimes, but people - and all of them like process to an absurdist degree. Once you learn their rule book you’re free to throw it at them.
One of my favorite things outside of the cockpit I did was tell my POI, “actually we can do that” then quoted 135 and the 8900 at him. He grimaced and said, “well sure but I don’t like it.”

You don’t always have to fight, and you have to pick your battles, but when they’re wrong, and you can prove it, you should.
Click to expand...
I can recall watching a G-IV taxi in standing in close proximity to our PMI and the crowd started disembarking, 19 passengers and 3 crew (I know these are the true numbers because I watched him make a check mark for each on a small paper pad). Airplane was certified and equipped for 19 passengers, 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew in the jump seat. I’d rather fly commercial. But he had the same sentiment, it was legal but he didn’t like it. And then we were on his radar for a while. Poor guy.
 
knot4u said:
I can recall watching a G-IV taxi in standing in close proximity to our PMI and the crowd started disembarking, 19 passengers and 3 crew (I know these are the true numbers because I watched him make a check mark for each on a small paper pad). Airplane was certified and equipped for 19 passengers, 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew in the jump seat. I’d rather fly commercial. But he had the same sentiment, it was legal but he didn’t like it. And then we were on his radar for a while. Poor guy.
Click to expand...
knot4u said:
I can recall watching a G-IV taxi in standing in close proximity to our PMI and the crowd started disembarking, 19 passengers and 3 crew (I know these are the true numbers because I watched him make a check mark for each on a small paper pad). Airplane was certified and equipped for 19 passengers, 2 pilots and 1 cabin crew in the jump seat. I’d rather fly commercial. But he had the same sentiment, it was legal but he didn’t like it. And then we were on his radar for a while. Poor guy.
Click to expand...

As long as you know their rule book and play according to their rules, you’re pretty much invincible with the feds.

my biggest secret weapon was basically to do their job for them. I’d make a compliance document showing how my proposed change met their requirements.

pretty hard for them to argue with their own paperwork

there is an approved training manual with “D -WARTS” as an mnemonic acrostic floating around now thanks to me.

“pilots are encouraged to use the mnemonic D-WARTS to aid in descent planning

D - Descent Profile
W - Weather
…

taking care to think about d-warts when starting down can limit risk…”
 
We had an ex-Boutique FO fly one of our Caravans into the approach lights at BWI a year and a half ago or so.

It’s in the NTSB database if you care to look. Interestingly, the company didn’t fire him until he to transitioned to the ATR and couldn’t get through training.

So that’s my story about Boutique.
 
Rosstafari said:
Not sure how closely most of JC follows the 135 world, but Boutique has had some... unfortunate developments lately.

It kicked off about ten days ago, when the Fargo FSDO -- which Boutique switched to last year -- informed management that Boutique's Pilot Development Program was not up to spec and that it should discontinue using First Officers. All were immediately furloughed, and those at outstations found themselves riding home in the back.

It ramped up today. This morning, the CEO released a letter he sent to the FAA protesting the decision. That's nice, but what the letter revealed -- and what pilots were not informed of previously -- is that the FSDO has also determined that all First Officers' flight time should be invalidated. The letter's attached, if you're the kind that enjoys watching spiders swirl around before being flushed down the drain.

As for Boutique's FOs... I don't know. I'm one of them (formerly), and I received the news about fifteen minutes before an interview with Skywest today. If it's accurate, 250 hours just evaporated from my logbook and I'm going to have to go back to trying to find an hour building job. That's turning out to be exceedingly difficult when you at the 1000+ hour range, because most low hour gigs don't want to hire people with such "high" time, given most head off to the airlines soon after.

Incidentally, if anyone knows of an opportunity, especially in Seattle or Denver, please let me know... because I'm kind of f'd. I've already lost two flight jobs due to COVID, but this latest turn... it's a rough one.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how the FAA can retroactively go back and take your time. Where does it end? What if you were finished training at OO and we’re on the Line but only flew 100 hours, so technically you would be 150 short. If a bunch of y’all get together this might be worth legal action. It’s one thing for the FAA to shutdown the SIC program is completely different for them to say you have to remove time from your log book. Again so what everyone that has even gotten SIC time from Boutique has to remove all their flight time?
 
Jk3728 said:
I don’t see how the FAA can retroactively go back and take your time. Where does it end? What if you were finished training at OO and we’re on the Line but only flew 100 hours, so technically you would be 150 short. If a bunch of y’all get together this might be worth legal action. It’s one thing for the FAA to shutdown the SIC program is completely different for them to say you have to remove time from your log book. Again so what everyone that has even gotten SIC time from Boutique has to remove all their flight time?
Click to expand...

this is why (partly) they can’t do this, and I reckon why if there even IS a legal interpretation, it’d be favorable to the sics.

If @Rosstafari logged the time IAW the opspec for a PDP, he’s covered. That time is valid and they can’t take it away from him, it’s not even something that should be brought up in the interview. Nothing other than, “they lost their SIC program and all the FOs got laid off, that’s why I’m applying” is appropriate.
 
JordanD said:
I feel like every time I see a story about a plane crashing into a house it’s always a cabin class twin Cessna.
Click to expand...
Uh, well, yeah. Let's not get started about light twin insurance, at least, don't with me, it makes me very grumpy every year.
 
Rosstafari said:
Well, uh, the good news was my interview seemed to go well. The bad news was I got the TBNT email, and after speaking with one of the recruiters, they suggested that the 135 time issue makes me too hot for OO to touch. I mean, I get it... when you have plenty of applicants who don't bring that kind of baggage with them...
Click to expand...
Those dummies. Sorry. Talk about having the wrong damned priorities in selection.

I'd see what the rest of the RJ Horde has to say, though. You didn't do this and didn't create the regulatory mess; this was done to you.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Uh, well, yeah. Let's not get started about light twin insurance, at least, don't with me, it makes me very grumpy every year.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain, but insurance is what it is. Plenty of SPTs cost a pile of coin to fix, and those are the ones that are cheap.
 
killbilly said:
Ah....no. You specified an airplane that would require a type rating. So while it's cat/class, that private pilot CANNOT act as PIC of that airplane, nor SIC, and thus logging it isn't valid.

MU-2 was mentioned later in the thread. That airplane, while under 12,500 pounds, requires SFAR training equivalent to a type. So that private (or commercial) pilot rated cat/class can't legitimately log sole manipulator in that airplane, either.
Click to expand...

There are many cases you can ACT as PIC without being rated Category and Class (and even possible without a type rating).

When you was working on your Private Pilot Certificate, You probably logged PIC while doing your first solo without being rated Category and Class.

I still stand by my original statement. 61.51 talks about LOGGING flight time. 61.51(e)(1)(ii) says you CAN log flight time if you are sole occupant. Do not get this confused with the other option of 61.51(e)(1)(i).

Yes, you as a private pilot single engine airplane only, you CAN legally fly a 747 and log PIC if you were the sole occupant (provided you held the solo endorsement required by 61.31(d)(2)). You don't have to to be rated in a multi engine, nor do you need a type rating.

As far as your MU-2 paragraph, Your pilot can log PIC as sole manipulator if he was rated category and class per 61.51(e)(1)(i), He does not need an SFAR to log PIC. Although someone such as a CFI would need to be in the aircraft who was acting as PIC and giving instruction.

There is a difference between "logging PIC" vs "acting as PIC". Two completely different regulations.
As a DPE, commercial and CFI applicants are REALLY confused by this on almost every ride I do.

Back to the original poster, I had several Boutique pilots (and even a 135 recruiter) inquire to me about this scenario (before this thread popped up), asking me if they need to delete their flight time. I gave them all the same answer as my original post. In my opinion the FAA FSDO can not take away their flight time as they complied with 61.51(e)(1)(i). We as FAA pilot examiners can NOT invalidate hours when an instructor "forgets" to give the student a solo endorsement for example. Was that solo legal? maybe not, but per 61.51, he was the sole occupant and can log the time. I can however choose not to accept his time, and an employer can elect not to hire someone if they don't like the time.
 
Last edited:
Fly_Unity said:
There are many cases you can ACT as PIC without being rated Category and Class (and even possible without a type rating).

When you was working on your Private Pilot Certificate, You probably logged PIC while doing your first solo without being rated Category and Class.

I still stand by my original statement. 61.51 talks about LOGGING flight time. 61.51(e)(1)(ii) says you CAN log flight time if you are sole occupant. Do not get this confused with the other option of 61.51(e)(1)(i).

Yes, you as a private pilot single engine airplane only, you CAN legally fly a 747 and log PIC if you were the sole occupant (provided you held the solo endorsement required by 61.31(d)(2)). You don't have to to be rated in a multi engine, nor do you need a type rating.
Click to expand...

I need to look further at this. I believe you, I just need to wrap my own understanding around this.

As far as your MU-2 paragraph, Your pilot can log PIC as sole manipulator if he was rated category and class per 61.51(e)(1)(i), He does not need an SFAR to log PIC. Although someone such as a CFI would need to be in the aircraft who was acting as PIC and giving instruction.

There is a difference between "logging PIC" vs "acting as PIC". Two completely different regulations.
As a DPE, commercial and CFI applicants are REALLY confused by this on almost every ride I do.
Click to expand...

Again, I need to dig deeper into this. My research (and it's been a while) indicated that even a CMEL-rated pilot couldn't log any of the time at the controls of an airplane like the MU-2 that required SFAR training.

I'm absolutely willing to concede that I'm wrong, but I need to figure out WHY.

EDIT: Here's where I'm getting tripped up on the 61.51(e)(1)(i)...it's (iii) and (iv)....


(iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted; or

(iv) When the pilot performs the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command provided -

(A) The pilot performing the duties of pilot in command holds a commercial or airline transport pilot certificate and aircraft rating that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft being flown, if a class rating is appropriate;

(B) The pilot performing the duties of pilot in command is undergoing an approved pilot in command training program that includes ground and flight training on the following areas of operation -

It seems like (iii) and (iv) are in addition to (ii)....and if I'm understanding your guidance correctly, you're saying those are INDEPENDENT OF (ii).

Correct?
 
Last edited:
killbilly said:
....and if I'm understanding your guidance correctly, you're saying those are INDEPENDENT OF (ii).

Correct?
Click to expand...


You got it. All that is correct. You only need to meet one of the "(i's) to be able to log PIC. You can log PIC if you meet one of the following:

i. Sole Manipulator of the flight controls if you are rated category and class and type if required, or
ii. Sole Occupant, or
iii. "Acting" as PIC when more then one crewmember is required (such as 121 operations or when a safety pilot is required), or
3. a CFI giving instruction, or
5. Acting as PIC when only one crewmember is required but the SIC is sole manipulator using PDP or SIC program (this is what allows Boutique captains to log PIC when their SIC is sole manipulator in an airplane that only requires one pilot, or

.... a few other scenarios such as supervised PIC. Or ATPs can log the entire trip if acting as PIC in an operation that requires an ATP (logging PIC time while your FO's are flying, you can log PIC time while you sleep!)
 
Rosstafari said:
Not sure how closely most of JC follows the 135 world, but Boutique has had some... unfortunate developments lately.

It kicked off about ten days ago, when the Fargo FSDO -- which Boutique switched to last year -- informed management that Boutique's Pilot Development Program was not up to spec and that it should discontinue using First Officers. All were immediately furloughed, and those at outstations found themselves riding home in the back.

It ramped up today. This morning, the CEO released a letter he sent to the FAA protesting the decision. That's nice, but what the letter revealed -- and what pilots were not informed of previously -- is that the FSDO has also determined that all First Officers' flight time should be invalidated. The letter's attached, if you're the kind that enjoys watching spiders swirl around before being flushed down the drain.

As for Boutique's FOs... I don't know. I'm one of them (formerly), and I received the news about fifteen minutes before an interview with Skywest today. If it's accurate, 250 hours just evaporated from my logbook and I'm going to have to go back to trying to find an hour building job. That's turning out to be exceedingly difficult when you at the 1000+ hour range, because most low hour gigs don't want to hire people with such "high" time, given most head off to the airlines soon after.

Incidentally, if anyone knows of an opportunity, especially in Seattle or Denver, please let me know... because I'm kind of f'd. I've already lost two flight jobs due to COVID, but this latest turn... it's a rough one.
Click to expand...
"Pilot Development Program" ...
Not even any one of those words appertains to reality in the context of B-Air
 
Rosstafari said:
Not sure how closely most of JC follows the 135 world, but Boutique has had some... unfortunate developments lately.

It kicked off about ten days ago, when the Fargo FSDO -- which Boutique switched to last year -- informed management that Boutique's Pilot Development Program was not up to spec and that it should discontinue using First Officers. All were immediately furloughed, and those at outstations found themselves riding home in the back.

It ramped up today. This morning, the CEO released a letter he sent to the FAA protesting the decision. That's nice, but what the letter revealed -- and what pilots were not informed of previously -- is that the FSDO has also determined that all First Officers' flight time should be invalidated. The letter's attached, if you're the kind that enjoys watching spiders swirl around before being flushed down the drain.

As for Boutique's FOs... I don't know. I'm one of them (formerly), and I received the news about fifteen minutes before an interview with Skywest today. If it's accurate, 250 hours just evaporated from my logbook and I'm going to have to go back to trying to find an hour building job. That's turning out to be exceedingly difficult when you at the 1000+ hour range, because most low hour gigs don't want to hire people with such "high" time, given most head off to the airlines soon after.

Incidentally, if anyone knows of an opportunity, especially in Seattle or Denver, please let me know... because I'm kind of f'd. I've already lost two flight jobs due to COVID, but this latest turn... it's a rough one.
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone at your airline really pissed off the fsdo. That’s my guess. They usually don’t slam the door on airlines like that. They allow for time for compliance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

killbilly
Pay Attention (aviation lesson learned)
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
killbilly
killbilly
trafficinsight
Commentary on a profile pic...
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Sculprit
Sculprit
Space Monkey
The "good" ol' days...
Replies
6
Views
4K
///AMG
///AMG
Luftwaffles
What Would You Do? Regionals to Majors
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
statusseeker1
statusseeker1
citrus
Bridging The Gap – Why We Need To Teach Pilots How To Use EFB
Replies
6
Views
3K
Ian_J
Ian_J
Back
Top