Currency for PIC vs. SIC

S

SkyDreamer

New Member
Here's an unusual one: A local flight school affords AMEL Commercial/Instrument pilots the opportunity fly right seat on charter trips (Part 135) in an aircraft (c-421 and BE-20) that does not "require" an SIC (customers occasionally request two pilots and also pay for the priviledge). Anyway, do the 61.57 currency requirements to carry pax apply to PIC only (i.e. if not MEL current can the SIC freely log the SIC time? What about at night?). Could not find a requirement under 135 for SIC takeoff and landing currency requirements while there are requirements for PIC currency (Sorry, I also don't have the FAR/AIM handy at the moment)...

I assume that the same SIC would not be able to "act" as PIC on the part 91 legs (deadhead) if not current with the 3 takeoffs/landings.

One side note that may (or not) throw a kink in this - I believe that the school owner has an "arrangement" with the FAA to have an SIC program but I could not tell you the details (I know he provides High Altitude signoffs for the SIC's flying the King Air - it is 12,500 lbs and does not require a type rating or 2 person crew since it is not "over 12,500 lbs). Anyone know of a practice like this? I've seen a couple of guys move on to other outfits (cargo, regionals, etc.) with no probelms regarding the time logged as SIC for this outfit. Thanks for the input...
 
SkyDreamer said:
Here's an unusual one: A local flight school affords AMEL Commercial/Instrument pilots the opportunity fly right seat on charter trips (Part 135) in an aircraft (c-421 and BE-20) that does not "require" an SIC (customers occasionally request two pilots and also pay for the priviledge). Anyway, do the 61.57 currency requirements to carry pax apply to PIC only (i.e. if not MEL current can the SIC freely log the SIC time?

...

Anyone know of a practice like this? I've seen a couple of guys move on to other outfits (cargo, regionals, etc.) with no probelms regarding the time logged as SIC for this outfit. Thanks for the input...
Click to expand...
butt hit two of the issues. Here's this one.

The reason that there have been no problems may be simply because the other outfits saw that minimum Part 135 or 121 requirements have been met with other entries and didn't care. But, in the scenario you post, unless the flihts are covered by some other reg (such as 135.101 - IFR passenger flights) that requires an SIC, there is no basis for anyone logging SIC just because a passenger wants a second pilot on board.

I guess there could be a "special program" with the FAA where a second pilot is in fact required, but I didn't get that from your post.
 
If Insurance requires two pilots then two pilots are needed right? So there for you should be able to log SIC time right? I have been told that before, but doesn't mean it's true.
 
addicted2flyN said:
If Insurance requires two pilots then two pilots are needed right? So there for you should be able to log SIC time right? I have been told that before, but doesn't mean it's true.
Click to expand...
It's not.

The rule says that (qualification issues aside) you can only log SIC when "more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted."

Insurance may add a lot of requirements to our work and to our lives but so far, the dictates of an insurance policy issued by a private company does not equal "regulations" issued by the FAA.
 
SkyDreamer said:
One side note that may (or not) throw a kink in this - I believe that the school owner has an "arrangement" with the FAA to have an SIC program but I could not tell you the details .
Click to expand...
These are the stories I used to hear before 9/11 when flight schools were raging with more business than they could handle. It's bull. I don't know of any FAA office that "approves" an SIC position where current regulations do not require one. But I have heard of these programs. They are mostly unscrupulous, or mis-informed operators. I am sure that some operators actually think that the insurance requirement for a second pilot is a "regulation" under which a second pilot is required, but the FAA does not think so. But the FAA is very thin, and this practice can go on for so long that people think it is legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top