BE20 logging & tech ques.

Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Posts
95
Total Time
3000+
Q1. If you're flying a King-Air 200 for flight-options/RTA as an SIC(pt. 91 I presume), as assigned as a newhire ... does this mean you have 0 legal flight-time until you upgrade to captain? (1 pilot aircraft & no ops spec requiring 2 pilots I presume). Just wondering.


Q2. On the 200, we all know you don't attempt an xfeed from an operating engine's side. I can find no reference why or any explicit explaination as to what WOULD happen if you did. Most of our very experienced 200 pilots didn't have the foggiest idea, it's just a don't do it type thing. My guess is that the side you attempted to xfeed from would flame out if you were requiring a large fuel flow (low alt/high pwr). the idea is there's not enough fuel pressure to go around so it's a function of if it could support (2) low fuel flows. any ideas?

Regards
 

ArmyC12

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
34
Total Time
10,000
I cannot answer question #1.

Question #2: As we all know, there is a 1000lb max fuel inbalance, this in mind. Flight Safety and everyone says do not x-feed in flight. Will the engines flame out if you do? no, they wont. Is it legal? no it's not. I assume you do a fuel pumps/x-feed operation check during you pre-flight? All you are checking is the pump operation and what not. I guess what I am saying is that the airplane will do it at any power setting at any altitude and the only indication you would get in the cockpit is the green cross feed light illuminated. And the only reason to do this W/ TWO opearating engines is if the line guys topped the outboards and only one inboard. Again that fuel inbalance is W/ in limits. In my opinion, the reason they tell you not to do it in flight is that IF something bad happened, they would be liable.

I hope I helped. Now REMEMBER, I didnot tell you to go to FL 270 and try this, just that it will work.
 

flydog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
542
Total Time
2500+
As to question #1 your assumption is correct. You cannot log BE-200 SIC time

The BE-200 does not require an SIC unless you are flying 135 without and approved autopilot in compliance with your Op Specs.

Flight Options although a 135 carrier operates under Part 91. Their BE-200 has an approved autopilot and is approved for single pilot 135 IFR operations.

Just because Flight Options requires an SIC as a matter of company policy doesnt mean you can log the time. Required crewmember for logging purposes means required by the aircraft's type certificate or type of operation not that the pilot is required by the operator for insurance or safety reasons.

The good news is you can log PIC time in the BE-200 at those times that you are the sole manipulator of the controls since a type rating is not required and you would be qualified for the aircraft and type of operation.

Bottom line is zero SIC time but you log all the PIC time when you fly.
 

msw

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2002
Posts
157
Total Time
10,000
What if the guy in the right seat of that Flight Options BE20 just happened to be a CFI-ME (with at least 5 hours PIC in the BE20) and he took the opportunity to teach the PIC a thing or two whenever he was not actually on the controls? Then he could log it ALL as PIC. Or would this violate some internal regulation at Options? Just curious...... Comments?

With reference to the crossfeed question: My understanding is nothing bad will happen, it'll work just fine mechanically, anywhere, anytime, and the prohibition was put in as you are sucking gas out of that side at TWICE the rate you would normally (since two engines are still running, consuming fuel) and (my guess) it was likely some lawyer that put that prohibition in as they were afraid you might prematurely run that tank dry and flame them BOTH out due to fuel starvation. BUT BUT BUT, bottom line: it is NOT an approved procedure, so if you do it, and something bad happens, you will probably have your butt hung out to dry big time. And why would you WANT to? Can any of you imaginitive types construct a scenario where you might reasonable have to do this?
 

HS125

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2002
Posts
193
Total Time
Enough
Flydog,

On logging part 135 King Air SIC flight time, you are not quite correct. 135.101 requires all operators to use an SIC for all IFR Passenger Carrying operations. 135.105 is an exception to 135.101 allowing for the use of an autopilot in lieu of an SIC.

This allows the operator to fly the aircraft single pilot or use two pilots at the operator’s discretion. Just because an operator has the proper authorization and the airplane is equipped with a working autopilot does not prevent a 135 operator from using an SIC, and that SIC MAY log the time as SIC (providing that pilot has had the appropriate 135 training and check ride) because 135.101 requires the SIC.

If the King Air is operated solely under part 91, I agree that an SIC is not required even if the operator or insurance wants one on board. Therefore the pilot would not be able to log the time spent as an SIC.

You are 100% correct that the pilot may log all the time that he/she is the sole manipulator of the controls as PIC (provided the pilot is properly rated in that aircraft).

I know that the RTA pilots were given 135 training and 135 check rides and they (RTA) had a 135 certificate. As to how the pilots logged their flight time, I would have to ask a few friends who flew for RTA.
 

flydog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
542
Total Time
2500+
If a 135 operator has a single pilot exemption per 135.105 as part of their op specs then an SIC is not a required crewmember unless the autopilot is inoperative

RTA and Flight Options operate under Part 91 so an SIC is never required because the aircraft type certificate does not require an SIC.

There was an article in AOPA Legal Counsel a while back about a pilot who logged SIC time in a King Air. Turns out the 135 operator had single pilot authorization and an SIC was not required. The pilot took a 135 PIC checkride in the King Air with a Fed and the Fed questioned the SIC entries in the King Air. Not only was his logging of SIC time in question but the SIC time was also used to satisfy TT for his ATP. All of the pilots certificates were revoked and the revocation was upheld by the NTSB. I believe one of the pilots arguments to the NTSB was that even though the SIC time may have been illegal the time still qualified as total time and therefore legal for meeting the requirements for the ATP.

I know there are many pilots at RTA and Flight Options that probably do log the time as SIC and will probably never get called on the carpet over it.

I guess its up to the pilot to interpret the rules but the liberal interpretation is probably not the one the FAA and the airlines will use. A single pilot authorization does not make an SIC an optional required crewmember. It eliminates the SIC as a required crewmember period.

I would certainly hate to be on the spot at an airline interview having to dissect and explain how my SIC time complies with 135.105 and 135.101 let alone have to justify this to a Fed during a checkride
 

HS125

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2002
Posts
193
Total Time
Enough
Flydog

Just went through this drill with the FAA. Our POI has given the green light to our King Air SIC training program and has confirmed that they may log that time as SIC in the King Air. In fact he is the one that pointed out that 135.105 is only an exception to the rule.

Also if you look in Jeppesen's FAR explained, you will find references to this exact question with exerts from the FAA's leagal council saying that the time is loggable.
 
Last edited:

tdvalve

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
104
Total Time
14,200
You're absolutely correct, HS125.

What many people don't understand is that Part 135 requires a qualified SIC to be on board for IFR flight. An autopilot authorization authorizes (not requires) the operator to substitute an autopilot for the otherwise-required SIC under certain conditions. The reason for these authorizations is to balance costs vs safety. If the operator wishes to use a trained and qualified SIC, he/she certainly can do so. It's the exact same situation as being authorized to takeoff with inoperative equipment under a Minimum Equipment List. No sane person would imply that because the MEL authorizes a radio to be inop, the aircraft can't fly with a working radio.
 

msw

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2002
Posts
157
Total Time
10,000
Yes, that is all well and good for a Part 135 flight, but........

I believe that the original question posted was about logging SIC time when flying a BE20 for a fractional, presumably under Part 91. Is there something "special" in a frax Ops Specs that allows them to use a SIC under Part 91 in a BE20, and then also allows that SIC to log it? I would not think so.
 

ArmyPilot

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Posts
60
Total Time
3000
SIC/PIC time

If I may add to this discussion with another question...


If you are flying a Hawker and are the sole minupulator of the controls and are typed in the aircraft should you log the time as PIC time? If so should you log the PIC time only in the left seat or does it matter?

Thanks,
 

Dep676

My Glock is bigger!!!!!
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
1,003
Total Time
Enough
It doesn't say anything about what seat you are sitting in. Only that you are the sole manipulater (sp.?). If you are typed I woudl think you could log PIC time. I know that a lot of people say that the airlines only are interested in who signed out the aircraft or some crap like that. I don't think it says in the reg's anything about signing out the aircraft. Just the sole manipulater.
 

Capthuff

A Pirate past 40
Joined
May 12, 2002
Posts
286
Total Time
enough
WOW What a great discusion. The King Air 200 is probably the most popular aircraft in the industry where this question comes up. The problem I have found flying for different companies in different regions of the country is THE RULES CHANGE for different FSDOs. I have been told many different opinions on this, so I guess, in the end, all that really matters is if your prospective employer will accept the logged SIC time. I have been told (by an FAA inspector) that your logbook is your personal record of your personal flight time - therefore you can put anything you want in it. However, comma, you must realize that your prospective employer might not accept this time. Also for a flight test (ATP) the feds might not accept it. The way I see it, no one really cares if you get your ATP at exactly 1500 hours, they want to see the written passed. I think no one in their right mind should pay for an ATP just to have it, because any company you go to work for will send you to school anyway and then you can take the ATP ride concurrent with your type/135/121 ride.
Now I have a question. How about the ruling for a CVR for a 2 pilot crew. Does RTA/FLOPS have CVRs in the King Air? I am certainly no FAR expert but as far as the reg for autopilot in lieu of SIC is concerned where does the CVR come in. If you have two pilots, don't you need a CVR?

Cappy
 

cvsfly

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Posts
723
Total Time
4600
Ditto on HS125 analysis. We operate BE-200 PT 91 and 135. We were a single pilot-in-command operator. 2 pilot operation. Our ops specs listed other pilot as an SIC. He was trained and checked. We also had the auto-pilot in lieu of an SIC. The auto-pilot doesn't have to be broken in order to use a legal SIC on 135. PT 91 flights only one person (PIC) is logging that time. We trade. Thems the brakes! We have since upgraded to a basic operator and we switch off PIC and SIC duties. On our checkrides we had to demonstrate compentance in both crew positions. This was our FSDO's interpretation. Never take one FSDO's interpretation as gospel (unless they threaten you, like they did us on our interpretation on our recent training manual! Not worth the fight and we wrote it they way they wanted it)
 

cvsfly

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Posts
723
Total Time
4600
Sorry hit wrong key - Capthuff, Info please. Noticed your aircraft experience and times. Our company may contemplate a C56X in a year or so. Do you know what the current insurance requirements are for PIC in that (91 vs 135, liability amount, etc) Any other operational info on it you might share would be most appreciated. Send me a PM if you can.
 

WileE

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Posts
258
Total Time
3100+
On question 2

I can put some input on question #2, being a former army guy the idea of flying a 200 single pilot just doesn't come up.

As far as why you aren't authorized to use fuel transfer in flight, there is no reason not to except for liability reasons. The people making the rules for that company (and this includes the army, they do the same thing) assume that the person flying the plane is too stupid to remember to turn off the fuel transfer switch, thus running the plane out of the fuel imbalance limit relatively quickly. The way the BE-200 fuel system is plumbed, when you are using fuel transfer, the engine you are feeding to will draw all it's fuel from the side you are transferring from, thus depleting that side at twice the rate. Your idea that using transfer would deplete your pressure doesn't apply because selecting fuel transfer automatically energized the standby boost pump on the side you are transferring from (logically since you can't rely on the engine driven boost pump if you are single engine). This provides a higher pressure coming from the other side of the aircraft and since the fuel transfer line follows an almost direct route into the opposite engine you have a higher pressure than the standard engine driven pump provides. This is the reason both engines feed from the side you are transferring from, not because any valve closed on the side you are transferring too.

In fact if you run the one side dry, the fuel would automatically begin to feed from the remaining side since then the fuel pressue from the formerly sucking engine will now be more than the pressure coming from the formerly feeding engine's side and then both engines would feed from the remaining tank. In this situation you would probably get a fuel pressure low light in the cockpit until you activate the standby fuel pump on the remaining side to ensure both engines recieve adequate fuel flow.

Now, since the rate of burn of both engines combined can easily reach 700-800 lbs per hour depending on your power settings and altitude, forgetting and leaving it on halfway through a four hour flight can be a rude surprise as you attempt to flare for touchdown and reach your control stops trying to keep your wingtip out of the dirt. That's why a large fuel imbalance at low speeds is a bad thing.

My guess is that some knucklehead actually bent a BE-200 doing this stunt some time back and since then the lawyer types insist that it can only be done in an emergency situation (ie single engine ops). Because in the end it is the lawyers writing the FOPMs and not the engineers, it becomes a operational way of doing things even if the reason isn't specified.

The strange thing is that in the BE-1900 it is done all the time to keep the plane balanced and there aren't any different annunciators or reminders to keep that situation from happening in it, but there is no restriction on the books about cross feeding. This is even though the max fuel balance on a 1900 is a paltry 200 pounds.
 
Last edited:
Top