Contract Pilot Question

Captain

Captain

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
8,002
Location
NOYB
Display Name
Display name:
First Officer
Ive always flown part 121, 135, and 91K so it's always been covered under OpSpecs.

Recently though I've been approached by a guys guy who bought a P180 for personal use. He's an owner pilot and will attend FlightSafety for a full initial. He's done a pre-buy and I've been approached to fly with him on a trip. The plane is basically new with less than 1,000 hours on it.

My question is this...how do I know the plane is airworthy? If I were ramped what would an inspector expect me to know about the legality of the plane? AD compliance, sched maint., time and cycle checks, all that stuff.

What do I need to see to know if the plane is legal? Would I be expected to pour through all the log books and bounce that off every scheduled check and AD ever issued? Professional mechanics miss stuff doing that.

Anyone have experience with this?
 
Captain said:
Ive always flown part 121, 135, and 91K so it's always been covered under OpSpecs.

Recently though I've been approached by a guys guy who bought a P180 for personal use. He's an owner pilot and will attend FlightSafety for a full initial. He's done a pre-buy and I've been approached to fly with him on a trip. The plane is basically new with less than 1,000 hours on it.

My question is this...how do I know the plane is airworthy? If I were ramped what would an inspector expect me to know about the legality of the plane? AD compliance, sched maint., time and cycle checks, all that stuff.

What do I need to see to know if the plane is legal? Would I be expected to pour through all the log books and bounce that off every scheduled check and AD ever issued? Professional mechanics miss stuff doing that.

Anyone have experience with this?
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you might get back in a canard... If anyone get fly one.. it's you..:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Captain said:
Ive always flown part 121, 135, and 91K so it's always been covered under OpSpecs.

Recently though I've been approached by a guys guy who bought a P180 for personal use. He's an owner pilot and will attend FlightSafety for a full initial. He's done a pre-buy and I've been approached to fly with him on a trip. The plane is basically new with less than 1,000 hours on it.

My question is this...how do I know the plane is airworthy? If I were ramped what would an inspector expect me to know about the legality of the plane? AD compliance, sched maint., time and cycle checks, all that stuff.

What do I need to see to know if the plane is legal? Would I be expected to pour through all the log books and bounce that off every scheduled check and AD ever issued? Professional mechanics miss stuff doing that.

Anyone have experience with this?
Click to expand...

Sit down and have a talk with whoever is maintaining the aircraft, ask them and have them show you the maintenance entries.

On a ramp inspection it's going to be certificates, AW and registration.

Don't sweat it.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Don't sweat it.
Click to expand...
...unless something bad happens and the FAA comes investigating and it turns out the airplane wasn't legal on paper. Then you'll wish you'd taken R&W's first recommendation and gone over the maintenance records with the maintainer.
 
Ron Levy said:
...unless something bad happens and the FAA comes investigating and it turns out the airplane wasn't legal on paper. Then you'll wish you'd taken R&W's first recommendation and gone over the maintenance records with the maintainer.
Click to expand...


Technically it's the PICs job to verify all of this. However, at most 135, 121, 91K operations I suspect it is mostly based on trust of the maintenance department.
 
dans2992 said:
Technically it's the PICs job to verify all of this. However, at most 135, 121, 91K operations I suspect it is mostly based on trust of the maintenance department.
Click to expand...
True, but the question was about a Part 91 personal use operation.
 
Ron Levy said:
True, but the question was about a Part 91 personal use operation.
Click to expand...


My point was that the PICs obligations are no different in this case than in other operations. (Well, technically)

Even so, I'd look deeper into the maintenance records for an arrangement like this that I would for 121 flying.
 
Your best bet is to call a service center(preferably the one that particular airplane is serviced at). Besides the standard inspections you know are required(annual, ELT, pitot static, etc...) larger turboprops have a lot more inspections that are required such as landing gear overhauls, emergency window checks, and other things like that. They are all different and some inspections required at intervals for one plane may not be required for another. Or if you want to do the digging yourself, the mx manual.
 
Talk with the person(s) who have been maintaining the aircraft all this time. I hope it has been flown fairly regularly, I know we have a few P180's that sat far too long and MX is now in the process of fixing quite literally more than 200 squawks just to get airworthy.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Sit down and have a talk with whoever is maintaining the aircraft, ask them and have them show you the maintenance entries.

On a ramp inspection it's going to be certificates, AW and registration.

Don't sweat it.
Click to expand...


Unless it is a ex Sierra Lima aircraft.... Then you will not get the "whole" story" on the maintenance history..:no::no:
 
Captain said:
Ive always flown part 121, 135, and 91K so it's always been covered under OpSpecs.

Recently though I've been approached by a guys guy who bought a P180 for personal use. He's an owner pilot and will attend FlightSafety for a full initial. He's done a pre-buy and I've been approached to fly with him on a trip. The plane is basically new with less than 1,000 hours on it.

My question is this...how do I know the plane is airworthy? If I were ramped what would an inspector expect me to know about the legality of the plane? AD compliance, sched maint., time and cycle checks, all that stuff.

What do I need to see to know if the plane is legal? Would I be expected to pour through all the log books and bounce that off every scheduled check and AD ever issued? Professional mechanics miss stuff doing that.

Anyone have experience with this?
Click to expand...

You will be SIC, he will be responsible for all that. If it's all personal PT 91 flying, even as PIC the responsibility of a contract pilot/not owner or operator, is pretty limited to the same stuff any renter is held to account for.
 
Henning said:
You will be SIC, he will be responsible for all that.
Click to expand...
Alvaro Corredor thought much the same, but he ended up with a suspension anyway because the FAA decided (and the ALJ and NTSB agreed) that he was really PIC even though his original intent was just to be along for the ride. Read this case and see how Captain might easily end up being considered the PIC if he does anything at all to override what that owner/pilot does or decides, and I suspect that owner/pilot intends Captain to be something more than a warm body in the right seat.

If it's all personal PT 91 flying, even as PIC the responsibility of a contract pilot/not owner or operator, is pretty limited to the same stuff any renter is held to account for.
Click to expand...
Can you quote some regulation, interpretation, or case to support that statement?
 
Ron Levy said:
Alvaro Corredor thought much the same, but he ended up with a suspension anyway because the FAA decided (and the ALJ and NTSB agreed) that he was really PIC even though his original intent was just to be along for the ride. Read this case and see how Captain might easily end up being considered the PIC if he does anything at all to override what that owner/pilot does or decides, and I suspect that owner/pilot intends Captain to be something more than a warm body in the right seat.

Can you quote some regulation, interpretation, or case to support that statement?
Click to expand...

Can you show where it is not?
 
Henning said:
Can you show where it is not?
Click to expand...
I'm not making the claim, you are, and I'm asking you to tell us what legal basis you have for saying that, or if it is instead just your own personal opinion without any basis in the regulations, legal interpretations, or case law. Your response makes me suspect it is the latter. However, since you ask...

While 91.403 says the "The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition", the PIC can by 14 CFR 1.1 be considered the "operator" in this context, but even if s/he isn't, 14 CFR 91.7 clearly states the PIC is still responsible for airworthiness, even if that responsibility is shared with the owner/operator who is "primarily responsible".
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I'm not making the claim, you are, and I'm asking you to tell us what legal basis you have for saying that, or if it is instead just your own personal opinion without any basis in the regulations, legal interpretations, or case law. Your response makes me suspect it is the latter.
Click to expand...

I'm just going by what happens in the real world. Can you find an example where this isn't the way it worked? Why would a Pt 91 non owner/operator contract PIC have different requirements than than a Pt 91 renter PIC? :dunno: Where does the extra burden come from?:confused:
 
Henning said:
I'm just going by what happens in the real world.
Click to expand...
Then please share with us a real world case where the PIC was absolved of a violation of 91.7 because s/he was not the owner of the aircraft and was deemed not to be its "operator".
 
Ron Levy said:
Then please share with us a real world case where the PIC was absolved of a violation of 91.7 because s/he was not the owner of the aircraft and was deemed not to be its "operator".
Click to expand...

Show me where 91.7 points out duties for a contract pilot that exceed those of the typical renter PIC.:dunno:
 
wow lots of fear over the fearful FAA ramp check, with XXX inspectors to cover how many thousands of airports.

how many of you guys borrow grandma's car or your buddy's car, and if he gives you a verbal that "it is good to go" you still go thru the maintenance records and emissions sticker etc stuff, to "verify" in case the cops stop you.

Really ?

the first order of the day, which was not mentioned by the in-house lawyers here, is Know Your Customer (KYC), and don't do contract work for dirtbags or scam artists. No, don't fly an unairworthy airplane but I never heard of some one doing a forensic exam of the records either.

Most of the posts on this thread, sadly, deal NOTHING with safety, everyone is concerned with "legal" compliance, and FARS, etc.

The numerous FAR references reflect this.

Not one person has stated anything safety related.

I am really surprised anyone on this board even gets airborne or flies for a living.
 
Last edited:
B350ATP said:
wow lots of fear over the fearful FAA ramp check, with XXX inspectors to cover how many thousands of airports.

how many of you guys borrow grandma's car or your buddy's car, and if he gives you a verbal that "it is good to go" you still go thru the maintenance records and emissions sticker etc stuff, to "verify" in case the cops stop you.

Really ?

the first order of the day, which was not mentioned by the in-house lawyers here, is Know Your Customer (KYC), and don't do contract work for dirtbags or scam artists. No, don't fly an unairworthy airplane but I never heard of some one doing a forensic exam of the records either.

Most of the posts on this thread, sadly, deal NOTHING with safety, everyone is concerned with "legal" compliance, and FARS, etc.

The numerous FAR references reflect this.

Not one person has stated anything safety related.

I am really surprised anyone on this board even gets airborne or flies for a living.
Click to expand...

The OP is all about legal obligations to protect his ratings and income, not safety, safety is easy.
 
I assume the aircraft is approved for single pilot operation. The owner appears to be legally qualified to be PIC. Why would captain be responsible for anything other than a second class medical (because he accepted money). His safety is one thing. A ramp check, show medical and go get a coke. No?
 
ronnieh said:
I assume the aircraft is approved for single pilot operation. The owner appears to be legally qualified to be PIC. Why would captain be responsible for anything other than a second class medical (because he accepted money). His safety is one thing. A ramp check, show medical and go get a coke. No?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the P-180 is certified for SP operations, whether it's insurable as such is another question, but not germane to the FAA.
 
Can't speak to your regs question, but we have a few P180's based at KDTO. Really pretty aircraft. I need to beg a tour of one some day.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Can't speak to your regs question, but we have a few P180's based at KDTO. Really pretty aircraft. I need to beg a tour of one some day.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I believe you'll see some seats in the back with two seats up front. The crazy people get the front seats.
 
Last edited:
seat_selection.png
Cpt_Kirk said:
I'm not expert, but I believe you'll see some seats in the back with two seats up front. The crazy people get the front seats.
Click to expand...
 
N801BH said:
Unless it is a ex Sierra Lima aircraft.... Then you will not get the "whole" story" on the maintenance history..:no::no:
Click to expand...

Even if it is an Ex SL.... you will never have enough time in your lifetime to go through the logs to figure out WTF happened and why it's still flying.
 
dans2992 said:
My point was that the PICs obligations are no different in this case than in other operations. (Well, technically)

Even so, I'd look deeper into the maintenance records for an arrangement like this that I would for 121 flying.
Click to expand...

Even in the part 135 world there is the problem of the pilot who calls the employer with a problem and is told to fly anyway. He does to keep his job and, if something happens, he's the only one hanging out there.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Even in the part 135 world there is the problem of the pilot who calls the employer with a problem and is told to fly anyway. He does to keep his job and, if something happens, he's the only one hanging out there.
Click to expand...

That depends on what state you are in now. It started in Louisiana because of the accidents and deaths in the oil field. Basically there the law is that as Captain if I say to the boss, " We can't do this safely" and the boss says something to the effect of "You do it or you get off and I'll put someone on who will." they then get transferred any and all criminal liability from any thing that happens. That was a great boon to captains in the oil field, it wasn't even 6 months before the first operations manager was serving 15-life in Angola for 28 counts of aggravated manslaughter. Once that hit the news, attitudes at the office changed over freaking night.

It never really bothered me because when one would threaten me I would say "Ok" and get on a different company's boat or collect unemployment and take a season off. Not everyone is in a position to be able to do so, not having children or debt does expand your ability to stick to your ethics and conscience. Plus there were already plenty of companies that would back their captains' safety calls even if the company was threatening the contract.
 
Henning said:
Show me where 91.7 points out duties for a contract pilot that exceed those of the typical renter PIC.:dunno:
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that the regulations are the same for all PIC's regardless of whether they're renters, contract pilots, or any other sort of pilot, and a simple reading of the regulations show no differentiation based on any classification of PIC. OTOH, you are suggesting that the standards are somehow different for certain PIC's, and I'm asking you to show me the regulation, interpretation, or case in which any lower standard is established for renter PIC's, contract pilots, or any other sort of pilot. IOW, you're suggesting that there exists for certain classes of PIC relief from the regulatory standards, and that does not exist in any regulation, interpretation, or case law.
 
ronnieh said:
I assume the aircraft is approved for single pilot operation. The owner appears to be legally qualified to be PIC. Why would captain be responsible for anything other than a second class medical (because he accepted money). His safety is one thing. A ramp check, show medical and go get a coke. No?
Click to expand...
No. See the case I linked above for how that could come to be.
 
Ron Levy said:
All I'm saying is that the regulations are the same for all PIC's regardless of whether they're renters, contract pilots, or any other sort of pilot, and a simple reading of the regulations show no differentiation based on any classification of PIC. OTOH, you are suggesting that the standards are somehow different for certain PIC's, and I'm asking you to show me the regulation, interpretation, or case in which any lower standard is established for renter PIC's, contract pilots, or any other sort of pilot. IOW, you're suggesting that there exists for certain classes of PIC relief from the regulatory standards, and that does not exist in any regulation, interpretation, or case law.
Click to expand...

I am going with Ron on this one.....

PIC is PIC.. and all that comes with that responsibility...
 
Henning said:
That depends on what state you are in now. It started in Louisiana because of the accidents and deaths in the oil field. Basically there the law is that as Captain if I say to the boss, " We can't do this safely" and the boss says something to the effect of "You do it or you get off and I'll put someone on who will." they then get transferred any and all criminal liability from any thing that happens.
Click to expand...
While that may be the law of the State of Louisiana, there is no such exemption in the FAR's.
 
Z06_Mir said:
Even if it is an Ex SL.... you will never have enough time in your lifetime to go through the logs to figure out WTF happened and why it's still flying.
Click to expand...

Not to sidetrack the amusing e-measurements being taken here, but is there a link to this pot of drama somewhere? I missed the SL story, and saw the planes up for auction recently.
 
schmookeeg said:
Not to sidetrack the amusing e-measurements being taken here, but is there a link to this pot of drama somewhere? I missed the SL story, and saw the planes up for auction recently.
Click to expand...

God help the buyers.....:yes:
 
Ron Levy said:
All I'm saying is that the regulations are the same for all PIC's regardless of whether they're renters, contract pilots, or any other sort of pilot, and a simple reading of the regulations show no differentiation based on any classification of PIC. OTOH, you are suggesting that the standards are somehow different for certain PIC's, and I'm asking you to show me the regulation, interpretation, or case in which any lower standard is established for renter PIC's, contract pilots, or any other sort of pilot. IOW, you're suggesting that there exists for certain classes of PIC relief from the regulatory standards, and that does not exist in any regulation, interpretation, or case law.
Click to expand...

Show me where I said anything besides "same as a renter PIC".
 
Ron Levy said:
While that may be the law of the State of Louisiana, there is no such exemption in the FAR's.
Click to expand...

What in the **** does the FAA have to do with this? Administration actions are nothing once you get someone killed, at that point you're looking for relief from the DA, not the FAA. Manslaughter trumps a suspension or revocation.
 
Ron Levy said:
No. See the case I linked above for how that could come to be.
Click to expand...

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. Under part 91 (no op specs as in 135) the pilot can sit either side and the other cockpit seat is for a passenger.
If the owners insurance required the babysitter there could be insurance ramifications but I don't see how the FAA would have any interest in the other passenger. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
schmookeeg said:
Not to sidetrack the amusing e-measurements being taken here, but is there a link to this pot of drama somewhere? I missed the SL story, and saw the planes up for auction recently.
Click to expand...

Well the SL were all Avantair's. Avantair went under due to poor management which led to even poorer maintenance. One such incident involved a piece of the tail coming off on takeoff roll, and the aircraft flying to its destination and IIRC taking off again.

I happen to work at a facility which works extensively on the Piaggio, and they have a couple of ex SL birds that have quite the laundry list of squawks. Hundreds. It's a mess, I'm just glad I didn't take the transfer that was offered to me to that department :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top