Contract Pilot Question

[poadeleted20]

I guess I am just slow. Can you take a minute to explain? If it is a single pilot airplane (which it is) there is only one PIC.

Edit: After thinking about this. Why would a person need any pilot certificate or medical? The OP would simply be a passenger unless designated as PIC.

That's the problem with this Part 91 operation -- there is no "designated" PIC as there is on the dispatch sheet of a Part 121/135 operation. The FAA is going to review what happened and see who was really acting as PIC, i.e., the person who was exercising the final authority over the flight. That's where Corredor got hosed -- when things went south, he took the controls from the putative PIC, thus demonstrating that he was acting as PIC, i.e., being the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft.

It's not entirely clear from the original post, but it sounds to me like the owner/pilot is not hiring Captain just to have a couple of hundred pounds of warm ballast in the right seat. Rather, I'm thinking the owner/pilot wants him there as a mentor pilot to back him up and keep him out of trouble. If that's what is going on, and Captain is making the command decisions in the cockpit or taking the controls when things get hairy, then the FAA could easily come to the conclusion that Captain is acting as the PIC, which would make Captain the final authority responsible to the FAA for whatever happens.

And all of this is why (as F'Ron can tell you) when I get in someone else's plane to go for a ride (as opposed to when I'm on the job), I ask them if they would like me to be an instructor/PIC, co-pilot, or just a passenger -- and then (unlike Corredor) I behave accordingly.

 

[ronnieh]

I see your point, thanks.

 

[Captain]

That's the problem with this Part 91 operation -- there is no "designated" PIC as there is on the dispatch sheet of a Part 121/135 operation. The FAA is going to review what happened and see who was really acting as PIC, i.e., the person who was exercising the final authority over the flight. That's where Corredor got hosed -- when things went south, he took the controls from the putative PIC, thus demonstrating that he was acting as PIC, i.e., being the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft.

It's not entirely clear from the original post, but it sounds to me like the owner/pilot is not hiring Captain just to have a couple of hundred pounds of warm ballast in the right seat. Rather, I'm thinking the owner/pilot wants him there as a mentor pilot to back him up and keep him out of trouble. If that's what is going on, and Captain is making the command decisions in the cockpit or taking the controls when things get hairy, then the FAA could easily come to the conclusion that Captain is acting as the PIC, which would make Captain the final authority responsible to the FAA for whatever happens.

And all of this is why (as F'Ron can tell you) when I get in someone else's plane to go for a ride (as opposed to when I'm on the job), I ask them if they would like me to be an instructor/PIC, co-pilot, or just a passenger -- and then (unlike Corredor) I behave accordingly.

Quick update as I've sorta left this thread alone for a bit.

I'm flying with the owner/pilot soon. I will be PIC as he hasn't been to school yet (FSI) or even flown it. He wouldn't even know how to start it. The plan is for me to take the plane on a test flight as it's coming out of Mx and if that goes well then I'll fly with him and a friend to pick up a third and go to the destination.

I've spoke with the Lead Mx guy and we've talked about all that they've done. It was very enlightening and I asked him the same question I asked in my OP. He informed me that most every private turbine plane is on some sort of maintenance program that tracks exactly the things I mentioned in my OP. The plane in question is good to go according to him and he works at a reputable shop so I believe him. I'm not going to crack open Mx logs and confirm this as I don't even know what's required as I don't have a P180 Mx manual and I'm not about to throw down $500 to get one.

So, I'll be PIC and he will watch and ask questions. His insurance, I hear, is going to require 50 hours of him flying with me after training so there's time later for me to watch and ask questions. But right now I'll do the flying. I may give him the controls in flight if he want's the feel, but I'll be doing the takeoff and landings at a minimum.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm flying with the owner/pilot soon. I will be PIC as he hasn't been to school yet (FSI) or even flown it. He wouldn't even know how to start it. The plan is for me to take the plane on a test flight as it's coming out of Mx and if that goes well then I'll fly with him and a friend to pick up a third and go to the destination.

So you're a hired gun pilot flying his plane.

I've spoke with the Lead Mx guy and we've talked about all that they've done. It was very enlightening and I asked him the same question I asked in my OP. He informed me that most every private turbine plane is on some sort of maintenance program that tracks exactly the things I mentioned in my OP. The plane in question is good to go according to him and he works at a reputable shop so I believe him. I'm not going to crack open Mx logs and confirm this as I don't even know what's required as I don't have a P180 Mx manual and I'm not about to throw down $500 to get one.

Then you are essentially putting your ticket in that "Lead Mx guy's" hands. You really trust him that much? If so, great. If not, you might at least want to check the basic AV1ATE items and the AD checklist from the last annual (just to make sure no recurring AD's are coming due) in those records.

So, I'll be PIC and he will watch and ask questions. His insurance, I hear, is going to require 50 hours of him flying with me after training so there's time later for me to watch and ask questions. But right now I'll do the flying. I may give him the controls in flight if he want's the feel, but I'll be doing the takeoff and landings at a minimum.

Then you'd better make sure you're an additional insured (not just "named pilot" or flying on the open pilot waiver) on his policy unless you can pay for the plane yourself if something bad happens and his insurer subrogates against you. I'm thinking your own non-owned policy would cost more than this cat will be paying you for the entire job.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

You really trust him that much?

You know, Ron, at some point you HAVE to trust other people. You can't personally know all there is to know, especially in a new to you airplane. At least not at that level.

The rest of your post is good advice.

 

[poadeleted20]

You know, Ron, at some point you HAVE to trust other people. You can't personally know all there is to know, especially in a new to you airplane. At least not at that level.

Agreed, but to not even "crack open Mx logs" of a privately owned/operated aircraft to check the basic AV1ATE items and due dates/times of recurring AD's? No, I'm not going to trust anyone that much.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Agreed, but to not even "crack open Mx logs" of a privately owned/operated aircraft to check the basic AV1ATE items and due dates/times of recurring AD's? No, I'm not going to trust anyone that much.

So looking at the AD's, how are you sure all have been complied with? Do you personally run a complete AD listing against Airframe, Engine, Propeller and Accessories on every aircraft you give instruction in?

 

[bnt83]

Agreed, but to not even "crack open Mx logs" of a privately owned/operated aircraft to check the basic AV1ATE items and due dates/times of recurring AD's? No, I'm not going to trust anyone that much.

I'm curious where he bought it from and is it on some sort of CAMPS tracking system. Stuff comes through the door everyday that is overdue, with big red letters on the tracking reports. Unless you are 135, 121, etc being audited by the FAA, it gets taken care of by doing whatever is required and the airplane leaves.

 

[ronnieh]

Almost all of my corporate flying has been contract flying. Greg does have a point that you can't know everything. Seems to me he has taken reasonable care.
On the insurance, Ron is dead on. Being subrogated against for the plane is unlikely (possible for sure) except in a willful case of property damage. Having said that, the liability is another story. Pick any scenario. An elderly passenger stumbles getting off the plane and breaks a hip. A lineman or any pedestrian walks into a prop and the list goes on. In any case like this you WILL be named on the suit. The owners insurance will not afford you any protection or defense unless you are "additionally insured" this is the term you need. Without this I am not touching the plane. This clause will cost little if anything. Insist on it.

 

[bnt83]

So looking at the AD's, how are you sure all have been complied with? Do you personally run a complete AD listing against Airframe, Engine, Propeller and Accessories on every aircraft you give instruction in?

Is it being serviced by a 145 repair station? If so is this station a Piaqggio Aero authorized service center?

Or is it a fly by night place that has only ever worked on one a few times?

Has the owner signed up for internet access to a customer portal where he/she can receive maintenance alerts from Piaggio?

 

[poadeleted20]

So looking at the AD's, how are you sure all have been complied with? Do you personally run a complete AD listing against Airframe, Engine, Propeller and Accessories on every aircraft you give instruction in?

No. I trust the mechanic who signs the list certifying its accuracy at the time it was signed (usually at the annual). But I do check it for recurring AD's, and if there are any, I check date/tach time to see if they have come due since that list was made, and if so, I check the logbooks to see if they were done. And yes, I've found people blithely flying planes with recurring AD's which came due since the last annual but were not complied with since then. Ditto the altimeter/static, transponder, and ELT checks.

 

[Captain]

Flight got flought.

I did end up going over the Mx Log for what that was worth. Mostly it was just reassuring to see everything looked neat and organized. The previous owner obviously was very meticulous with records.

The plane was spotless and the new owner was very impressed with his new toy.

Anyway, thanks all for your input.