Low Time Eclipse 500 Co-pilot

C

ComplexHiAv8r

Well-Known Member
Guess it has begun, even low times for VLJ Co-pilots. No contact information, hense I put it here instead of jobs. More informational then a job posting.

Eclipse 500 copilot 11/1/2007
Over 48 NEW pilot jobs posted last week!
386 Pilot Jobs Posted in the Last 90 DAYS!


Description:
A flight department based at Scottsdale (SDL) Airport is looking to train a qualified applicant of good character for the copilot position of an Eclipse 500 jet. Most flights are out in the morning and back in the evening with occasional overnights.

Requirements:
Minimums: Total Time 1000 hours PIC 500 hours Commercial Multi-engine, Instrument

Company Benefits:
Benefits: Salary, 401k, health insurance
 
I thought the Eclipse was certified for single-pilot ops. Is this an insurance need, perhaps?

If that's the case, is getting SIC time in this plane just like getting SIC in a Caravan? I mean, does it even matter?
 
From what I can glean from the Eclipse Aviation Critic blog, they are going to need a lot of co-pilots, becuase it's going to be real hard for a lot of the E500 owner/pilots to pass their stringent type rating requirements.
 
killbilly said:
I thought the Eclipse was certified for single-pilot ops. Is this an insurance need, perhaps?

If that's the case, is getting SIC time in this plane just like getting SIC in a Caravan? I mean, does it even matter?
Click to expand...

No different than time in a Citation.

A Caravan is a single engine turboprop. An Eclipse is a twin engine jet that might well be put on a 135 cert. that may require a second pilot, at which point the kind of time that you're getting changes a little.

You can need a pilot for two situations: one because the airplane itself simply requires it, and the other when the type of operation requires it. A King Air does not NEED two pilots, but in the charter world it's flown in a lot of situations with two pilots either because of ops specs issues or insurance issues. If you need to be there, though, it can be quality flight time.
 
jtrain609 said:
You can need a pilot for two situations: one because the airplane itself simply requires it, and the other when the type of operation requires it. A King Air does not NEED two pilots, but in the charter world it's flown in a lot of situations with two pilots either because of ops specs issues or insurance issues. If you need to be there, though, it can be quality flight time.
Click to expand...

So...if the insurance company or Op Spec (am I using that term correctly?) requires two pilots, even though the plane can be flown with one, then the SIC time is useful?
 
I'd say so. I had a legit part 135 check out as an SIC in a King Air at Ameriflight, and even though our ops specs said we didn't need to be there, we *could* dispatch the flight with two pilots and the insurance company wanted us to. You'd better believe I counted that flight time, and in fact the only emergency I've declared was while doing that part of the gig...
 
With the airlines hiring pilots with less than 1000 TT, is that really considered low-time? I'd be interested in finding out the salary.
 
killbilly said:
I thought the Eclipse was certified for single-pilot ops. Is this an insurance need, perhaps?

If that's the case, is getting SIC time in this plane just like getting SIC in a Caravan? I mean, does it even matter?
Click to expand...
The Mustang and CJ series are certified for single pilot ops, but there are times when a copilot must be on board. For instance, there are 2 types of type ratings for these planes (single pilot or crew types). We've had some clients come through our training program as a single pilot applicant, only to find out that they have trouble handling the aircraft by themselves in an emergency. So, they end up getting the crew type rating instead. Also, if the autopilot is inop, then a copilot must be on board even if the PIC has a single pilot type rating. I've talked to a couple of FAA people at two separate FSDOs. For the reasons mentioned above, the FAA accepts SIC time in the Mustang and CJs even when the PIC is single-pilot typed.

Of course that is the Citations. I don't know about the Eclipse.
 
killbilly said:
So...if the insurance company or Op Spec (am I using that term correctly?) requires two pilots, even though the plane can be flown with one, then the SIC time is useful?
Click to expand...

Well.....technically no.

If the Ops Specs require 2 pilots in a single pilot airplane, or if the regs do (135.101 requires an SIC for IFR pax carrying ops, there's another one for "more than 10 passenger seats"...or is it "10 or more"...I can't remember), then yes you may log SIC if you meet the requirements of 61.55.

A few bounces, some training and away you go.

Under part 135, you'll need a checkride too. Normally your company check airman can do this one but sometimes a fed has to do it. YMMV.

However, if you have the Ops Spec authorizing an autopilot in leiu of an SIC (135.105?) or maybe you aren't carrying pax for hire and the insurance is saying "you must have a 2nd pilot", even if you are SIC qualified through 61.55, you aren't technically able to log SIC.

So, to recap.

Ops Specs/Regs/Airplane requires 2 pilots = Loggable
Insurance requires 2 pilots but you don't fit into an Ops Spec, Reg or Airplane that already requires it = No Dice

Always remember. The regs say what you may fly, the insurance says what you can fly...not the other way around. :D

-mini
 
killbilly said:
So...if the insurance company or Op Spec (am I using that term correctly?) requires two pilots, even though the plane can be flown with one, then the SIC time is useful?
Click to expand...

Insurance company requirements do not make a SIC necessary except for the insurance company. They may require a second pilot, but that isn't good enough to log SIC.


edit. Didn't see the above post.
 
Good stuff! Thanks.

My question was really pertaining to marketability, though. I've read on this forum that SIC time logged in certain cases was really useless. I was just wondering if, in the eyes of someone doing some hiring at an airline or some place like NetJets, this was one of those cases.
 
killbilly said:
Good stuff! Thanks.

My question was really pertaining to marketability, though. I've read on this forum that SIC time logged in certain cases was really useless. I was just wondering if, in the eyes of someone doing some hiring at an airline or some place like NetJets, this was one of those cases.
Click to expand...
Well....it's going to depend on the legality of your time and the company. Sometimes it even comes down to the interviewer.

LEGALLY speaking...you could log SIC time in a Cessna 172 under Part 91. Now, that being said do I think it's "smart"? No, not really. I think anyone doing an interview would have a bunch of red flags shoot up.

Does that make it illegal or not worth while? Not at all.

I've got about 300 hours of King Air time, some of it was "SIC" (insurance required) and some of it was "PIC" (sole manipulator) and some was straight PIC (as in, I was actually the only pilot on board).

Now, I don't actually have it in my "logbook", per se. It's in an excel file that I print and take with me in case someone wants to see. I only include the Part 91 flights (the actual PIC and sole manipulator PIC) in my total time and multi-engine time. The SIC time is just there as an "experience measurement" and to satisfy the insurance companies. Some will want 100 hours time in type. Because of the record, I may be able to satisfy that.

Does it do me any good in an interview? Well, I've done lots of that lately. Honestly, only one person even wanted to see the logbook so I don't think it did any good or bad.

YMMV.

-mini

PS
The "SIC" time, unless you've done the required training (be it just part 61 or 135) is "worthless" except to show experience. What I mean is, you can use it to say "yeah...I've done that ____", but not for a certificate or rating. If you've done the training (whether 61 or 135 or both), you can use it for a certificate or rating subject to the rules of that particular cert or rating.

Hope that helps!
 
NJA_Capt said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

I do agree that 1000 hours isn't much, and I myself would consider it low-time...does the "market" consider it low time...I guess that would have been the better question. Of course either way, I guess that's not the issue here.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top