Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

BE20 logging & tech ques.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Posts
95
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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,
 

Latest resources

Back
Top