Hypothetical (Ron Levy...please advise)

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,433
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Purely hypothetical question:

Jet airplane, flying on an IFR clearance at 15,000 ft (expect higher in 10 minutes). 2 pilots are required. Auto Pilot is broken, but not on the MEL. One pilot up to use the head, and is still operating as the SIC (or PIC) while in the bathroom. (14CFR91.105(a)(1)).

I slide into the unoccupied seat, and grip the yoke, keeping the plane at 15,000ft.

While I understand that I cannot log this flight.....is the flight still operating legally, with one pilot at the controls, one pilot in the latrine, and one passenger flying the airplane from the unoccupied pilot's seat?

Additional Necessary Fact: I have no MEL.
 
Last edited:
Unless the jet is big enough to require a Part 125 certificate, I can't think of any FAR being violated. If it is that big (SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 POUNDS OR MORE), then 125.313 would come into play.
Sec. 125.313

Manipulation of controls when carrying passengers.

No pilot in command may allow any person to manipulate the controls of an airplane while carrying passengers during flight, nor may any person manipulate the controls while carrying passengers during flight, unless that person is a qualified pilot of the certificate holder operating that airplane.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
And if the other pilot is a CFI, Nick could log the time as flight training received?
Click to expand...

Should be able to.

Even if he had a MEL though, he couldn't log PIC, because to log PIC as "sole manipulator" you need Category (Airplane), Class (MEL) and as it's a jet and almost all jets need a type rating Type.
 
What if it's a two-pilot required jet, like a Citation 500?
 
rpadula said:
What if it's a two-pilot required jet, like a Citation 500?
Click to expand...
That's been specified.

As long as there are two pilots (and there are, one of them's in the head), and the acting PIC is type rated, the flight is legal. I think the SIC only needs category and class, but not type.
 
rpadula said:
What if it's a two-pilot required jet, like a Citation 500?
Click to expand...
A Citation 500 doesn't require two pilots by certification. But even if it did, as Ron said, nothing prohibits the situation Nick described as long as it is Part 91.

The development of the 14,700-pound MTOW Citation S/II in the early 1980s, though, made it impractical to spin off a 12,500-pound Part 23 version without incurring severe operational limitations. So, Cessna petitioned FAA Flight Standards in Washington, D.C., for an operational exemption to Part 25’s requirement to have two crewmembers, arguing that the excellent safety records of the Citation I/SP and II/SP enabled the S/II to be flown safely by a single pilot with a CE500 common type-rating. The FAA agreed, at the time, and granted what has become known colloquially as the Cessna Exemption. Cessna subsequently applied for extensions of the single-pilot operation exemption for the Citation 500, 550 and 560 models for pilots with the CE500 common type-rating, thus eliminating the need for separate single-pilot, Part 23 versions of 500-series aircraft.
Click to expand...
http://mycontractpilots.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=9
 
If it's a 2-pilots plane, and the left-seater is a CFI, I still don't think it would work because then the "real" SIC would become a passenger, and that would violate 61.55(h)(2). OTOH, if the "real" SIC were a CFI with the right type rating (gotta have the type rating to give training in a type-rating-required aircraft -- 61.195(b)(2)), then s/he could instruct from the jump seat while Nick's in the right seat, and the left seater would act as PIC. In that situation, the left seater would log PIC, the jump seat instructor would log PIC and training given, and Nick would log SIC and training received.
 
Ron Levy said:
If it's a 2-pilots plane, and the left-seater is a CFI, I still don't think it would work because then the "real" SIC would become a passenger, and that would violate 61.55(h)(2). OTOH, if the "real" SIC were a CFI with the right type rating (gotta have the type rating to give training in a type-rating-required aircraft -- 61.195(b)(2)), then s/he could instruct from the jump seat while Nick's in the right seat, and the left seater would act as PIC. In that situation, the left seater would log PIC, the jump seat instructor would log PIC and training given, and Nick would log SIC and training received.
Click to expand...
Good point, I forgot about the CFI requiring the type rating.
 
TMetzinger said:
Good point, I forgot about the CFI requiring the type rating.
Click to expand...
One interesting point I'm guessing the reg-writers missed is that 61.195(b)(2) and 61.195(e) only say the instructor must have the type rating on his/her pilot certificate. It does not say it must be a PIC type rating. Prior to 2005, type ratings were only issued at the PIC level, but since then, there's also the SIC type rating. Does that fill the bill? Personally, I think if it's drawn to their attention, they'll say it must be a PIC type rating, but...
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If it's a 2-pilots plane, and the left-seater is a CFI, I still don't think it would work because then the "real" SIC would become a passenger, and that would violate 61.55(h)(2). OTOH, if the "real" SIC were a CFI with the right type rating (gotta have the type rating to give training in a type-rating-required aircraft -- 61.195(b)(2)), then s/he could instruct from the jump seat while Nick's in the right seat, and the left seater would act as PIC. In that situation, the left seater would log PIC, the jump seat instructor would log PIC and training given, and Nick would log SIC and training received.
Click to expand...

Wait, so if the CFI can instruct from the jump seat, then I could log dual received (but not PIC) during the flight, right?

I have PP/ASEL, no category/class/type.
 
SkyHog said:
Wait, so if the CFI can instruct from the jump seat, then I could log dual received (but not PIC) during the flight, right?
Click to expand...
That's how I read it.

I have PP/ASEL, no category/class/type.
Click to expand...
Oops -- no, not in that case. The training exemption in paragraph (h) only covers the familiarization requirements of paragraph (b), not the certificate/rating requirements in paragraph (a). You still need the cat/class ratings to act as SIC even in training, and you don't have AMEL, so no go.
 
Ron Levy said:
One interesting point I'm guessing the reg-writers missed is that 61.195(b)(2) and 61.195(e) only say the instructor must have the type rating on his/her pilot certificate. It does not say it must be a PIC type rating. Prior to 2005, type ratings were only issued at the PIC level, but since then, there's also the SIC type rating. Does that fill the bill? Personally, I think if it's drawn to their attention, they'll say it must be a PIC type rating, but...
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's not tell them. I agree with you in principle that if you can't pass a PIC type rating checkride that you shouldn't be instructing in the airplane.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Sometimes asking permission IS better than asking forgiveness. :yes:
Click to expand...
Easy for you to say -- you have the PIC type rating.

But seriously, on this issue, I agree completely. Given the potential consequensces for a 61.59 violation, "log now, ask later" is fraught with too much peril.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, but that does not mean I can go out and give dual instruction in a 777/.:wink2:
Click to expand...
Your company might not let you but wouldn't you be able to do it legally in a Part 91 training situation? Also we have been talking about the CFI being in the jump seat. The way I read it, the PIC/CFI can give instruction to the trainee SIC who is sitting in the other pilot seat under the following conditions of 61.55. Nick couldn't be the SIC in training because he doesn't have a MEL but someone who does have an MEL would fall under this rule.

(h) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, a person may serve as second in command in that specific type aircraft, provided:
(1) The flight is conducted under day VFR or day IFR; and
(2) No person or property is carried on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
Your company might not let you but wouldn't you be able to do it legally in a Part 91 training situation?
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing? I really don't know.

Also we have been talking about the CFI being in the jump seat. The way I read it, the PIC/CFI can give instruction to the trainee SIC who is sitting in the other pilot seat under the following conditions of 61.55.
Click to expand...

I imagine that was how it was done pre simulators.

Nick couldn't be the SIC in training because he doesn't have a MEL but someone who does have an MEL would fall under this rule.
Click to expand...

I am not much in the mood to research it right now, but what is to preclude someone from getting an initial ME rating in a 777 concurrent with a type ride?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I am not much in the mood to research it right now, but what is to preclude someone from getting an initial ME rating in a 777 concurrent with a type ride?
Click to expand...
61.55(a)(1). Can't act as SIC without the ME rating -- even in training, because 61.55(h) only exempts you from 61.55(b).
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Is there such a thing? I really don't know.
Click to expand...
You mean a Part 91 777? I don't know either.

Greg Bockelman said:
I imagine that was how it was done pre simulators.
Click to expand...
The reason I started thinking about it is that I have about .5 dual received in a Lear 35, which included a takeoff and a landing, before I had ever been to school. Maybe I should also add that an FAA inspector was in the back.

Greg Bockelman said:
I am not much in the mood to research it right now, but what is to preclude someone from getting an initial ME rating in a 777 concurrent with a type ride?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you could do it in a sim but I'm wondering how you could do it in an airplane. Who would be the SIC while you were getting training? That would be interesting to find out, though.
 
Ron Levy said:
61.55(a)(1). Can't act as SIC without the ME rating -- even in training, because 61.55(h) only exempts you from 61.55(b).
Click to expand...

So it is not possible to get an initial ME rating in a plane that is type certificated for two pilots?
 
What part are airline ferry flights operated under?
 
Ron Levy said:
No. Anything that big would normally be Part 125. Closest you could come to plain-vanilla Part 91 would be Subpart K fractional program, which ain't far off 135.
Click to expand...
But would anything preclude someone with an MEL from going out with a CFIAME and getting checked out as an SIC in a 777?
 
Everskyward said:
But would anything preclude someone with an MEL from going out with a CFIAME and getting checked out as an SIC in a 777?
Click to expand...
The Part 125 rules don't allow you to just jump in and fly, but once you fill the necessary ground training squares (see 125.287), yes, you could. And, of course, the CFI would have to hold a B777 rating on his/her pilot certificate, and either be PIC-qualified or occupy the jump seat while a qualified PIC occupies the left seat.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Not necessarily true. When I was in the airline we would have management pilots fly ferry trips that didn't qualify under Part 121 (age limit).
Click to expand...
But they did have to go through the company's Part 121 training/qualification program, right? IOW, they met all the requirements except age?
 
Ron Levy said:
But they did have to go through the company's Part 121 training/qualification program, right? IOW, they met all the requirements except age?
Click to expand...
I don't know how it works with Part 121, but with Part 135, just because an airplane is on a Part 135 certificate does not mean that every flight or even a majority of flights needs to be operated as a 135 flight. If the flight is not operated under 135 the pilots only need to meet the qualifications of 61 and 91 (apparently plus 125 if it is a larger airplane but I am not familiar with those regs).
 
Everskyward said:
I don't know how it works with Part 121, but with Part 135, just because an airplane is on a Part 135 certificate does not mean that every flight or even a majority of flights needs to be operated as a 135 flight. If the flight is not operated under 135 the pilots only need to meet the qualifications of 61 and 91 (apparently plus 125 if it is a larger airplane but I am not familiar with those regs).
Click to expand...
That's true for smaller planes, but not for Part 125 planes. Part 125 allows an otherwise-Part 125 plane to be operted under Part 91 only under certain limited conditions, including if "[t]hey are being operated under part 91 by an operator certificated to operate those airplanes under the rules of parts 121, 135, or 137 of this chapter." That makes it sounds like the carrier must operate the flights to the same standards as their normal ops with regard to crewmember training and qualification (except, as R&W points out, for the age rule which applies only to the actual Part 121 operations). IOW, same pilot certificates, training requirements, 6/12-month checks, etc. Not being that familiar with this niche of the FAR's, I'm not sure I'm reading this right, so correction by someone who knows better would be appreciated, but that sounds like you can't jump into the right seat of one of United Airlines' 777's with only a PP-ASEL and some CP-AMEL-B777/CFI-AMEL just off the street in the left seat and call it a Part 61/91 training flight and evade all the regular rules for flying United's airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Not being that familiar with this niche of the FAR's, I'm not sure I'm reading this right, so correction by someone who knows better would be appreciated, but that sounds like you can't jump into the right seat of one of United Airlines' 777's with only a PP-ASEL and some CP-AMEL-B777/CFI-AMEL just off the street in the left seat and call it a Part 61/91 training flight and evade all the regular rules for flying United's airplanes.
Click to expand...

Why not? As long as it's operated under Part 91 it's entirely legal. I had a friend of mine that got a 737 type a few years ago and they did everything in the sim except for the 3 take offs and landings (Class B sim). So after sim training they rented a B737 from Southwest and did their t/o and landings, all under part 91.
 
Thanks for the clarification. That covers INdigo's question about someone with an AMEL getting a 61.55(b) SIC checkout in a B777 from a CFI-AME -- it would be legal under the FAR's. However, this would not help the person trying to obtain an initial ME rating in a 2-pilots required aircraft (Greg's question), since nobody would be qualified under 61.55 to be the SIC even in training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top