The "NO PAY" job offer

John Herreshoff said:
Right, that's what I thought; then how can you have a provision that calls for having no SIC and no autopilot, but still have Airnet have an SIC program? It seems mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
I think I've posted this three times on here LOL.

Time Building with AirNet
AirNet offers a paid time-building option to pilots who do not yet qualify to fly as pilot in command in Part 135 operations. Under this arrangement, time-builders go through the same initial training program, but fly in the right seat with a captain-qualified pilot on one of AirNet’s piston twin routes until they build enough total and PIC time to take over the left seat responsibilities. Washka says pilots applying to the second-in-command program need about 900 total hours to be competitive for hiring.

“That would be excellent, because then it would take about three months to build enough time to become an AirNet captain and we think that’s optimal,” he says.

Inevitably, when AirNet’s SIC program is discussed, some pilots become confused about how to log the time. Washka recognizes the issue and says AirNet received so many questions on the logging of flight time “that we actually went back and sat down with the FAA in Washington to get interpretations and make sure we’re doing everything right.

“In a nutshell, what they said was not only can pilots log time in the right seat of our aircraft, but they can log it as SIC time because we require an SIC to be there,” he explains. “It used to be that we had them logging only their PIC time and the other time was just added to total time. Well, the FAA came back and said, ‘Look, even though the aircraft does not require a second crew member; because of the rules you operate under and your operations specs, you can assign a pilot to a plane and they can log their time as SIC time.’

“When a time builder is on board, as long as he’s trained and checked in the plane, he can log the time he’s actually flying the plane as PIC. If he’s not flying the plane, but acting as a crew member, he can log it as SIC time,” Washka states. “It’s totally legal and it’s important to understand. There’s no gray area in the logging of flight time as far as AirNet and the FAA are concerned.”

Washka also emphasizes that when AirNet hires a low-time pilot, he or she is immediately added to the company’s full-time pilot seniority list upon successfully completing initial training.

“It used to be they had to build up enough time to become a captain before they moved up to the full-time seniority list, so this change is a great perq for a pilot,” he says. “Their seniority is only determined by the day they pass their initial checkride, so if they hustle and do a good job, it can really pay off later when they’re higher on the list.”

— Ian Tocher
Click to expand...

From here

Apparently, the FAA has given their seal of approval on the program...

~wheelsup
 
Right, I've read that before. Hence, where is this provision that says that you can operate aircraft under 135 regs with no SIC and no autopilot. By provision, I'm assuming that stuckinGFK meant that it's a provision within the ops spec for that specific company, and it's not a general 135 rule eh?
 
The provision is in 135...you need an SIC or autopilot for passenger ops, but not for cargo. We have items in our Ops Specs that state we can have SIC, but are not required. This helps us on very low takeoffs in Caravans and Navajos, since you need a 2 crew operation for it, along with specific equipment (Barons aren't equipped for it). So, if all the props are grounded due to very low vis conditions, they'll team up pilots to get the two-crew (must be qualified in the airplane) lower vis takeoffs. I've had to do it out of HWK (Jackson, MS)...luckily I had a guy with me that was taking over the run and was qual'ed or we would've been sitting there for a while.

Sorry, too lazy to look up the quotes for you, but they're in the regs.
 
Chaz said:
Actually, thats not a bad deal depending on how long it would take. Think about the cost vs the hours. Dam,I would definitely take it.
Click to expand...

Are you freakin kidding me.....

this is the same job I saw a while back. Its not a time building thing its a real job that they should be paying somebody to do. If the FAA doesn't require an SIC for the metro it sounds like insurance does and so its PFJ. ALso you need to think about it a bit more before you say its a good deal.

3500 up front, on call 24/7, no way to pay living expenses for that year. Also it says on thier at the completion of a year they'll reimburse you for your expenses but what it doesn't say is that a shady company like this wouldn't have a problem firing you at 11 months an 29 days. Holy crap I just got pissed.
 
Is there a website for this company so we could check this out for ourselves??
And yes they probably make their money by conveniently laying people off the day before the contract's up!
 
Texasspilot said:
Its not a time building thing its a real job that they should be paying somebody to do. If the FAA doesn't require an SIC for the metro it sounds like insurance does and so its PFJ.
Click to expand...

I agree - this company isn't giving this "opportunity" just to help some low timer out - there is a reason they are offering it. If it truly was a single pilot operation then they wouldn't need to go through all the hassle of posting this job, interviewing, FAA op specs for two pilots, etc. etc.

How much does a twin cabin class TP cost to operate per hour? I was told a larger Shorts comapny operates their Shorts at a cost of about $1,200 per hour - so even at a measly $30/hr you're talking 2.5% of the operating costs...THAT is cheap. If they're that cheap, I don't want to even think about what OTHER areas they cut costs on...

~wheelsup

EDIT: This stuff should be illegal - how can a company get away without paying an employee? This should be reported to the government...
 
John Herreshoff said:
Right, I've read that before. Hence, where is this provision that says that you can operate aircraft under 135 regs with no SIC and no autopilot. By provision, I'm assuming that stuckinGFK meant that it's a provision within the ops spec for that specific company, and it's not a general 135 rule eh?
Click to expand...

I meant a 135 provision and the other posters cleared it up for me.
 
"This stuff should be illegal - how can a company get away without paying an employee?"

I think Gulfstream pays minimum wage just to make it legal.
 
"This stuff should be illegal - how can a company get away without paying an employee?"
Click to expand...

Good point. Is such a person even considered an employee? I am sure there are labor laws that this company is bypassing.

L.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top