Lear down TEB

Half Fast said:
I'm a newly minted hobbyist, so I know zip, nada, nothing about these sorts of operations. Is it common to have a SIC who isn't qualified to fly the plane?
Click to expand...

He was qualified from the FAA perspective.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Like I said, I can see the benefit to it, but it requires correct execution.

I would agree that many outfits wouldn't be executing it correctly. But it doesn't make the idea entirely awful.
Click to expand...
I can see this making sense with a plane certified for single-pilot operation (Citation, Phenom, etc) but a Learjet is two-pilot airplane. I don't know why it would ever be acceptable to not have two pilots fully capable of flying that airplane. That seems to go against the intent of the regs requiring two pilots in the first place.
 
weilke said:
He was qualified from the FAA perspective.
Click to expand...

Yes, but his company, by making him an SIC-0, said he could only be "pilot not flying." Why put someone in that seat that you're not willing to let fly the aircraft? Especially if the aircraft requires two pilots.

I'm completely ignorant of these sorts of operations and I'm just looking for better understanding. Why is it appropriate to have an SCI-0 in the right seat of a plane that, per its AFM, has a minimum crew of a pilot and a co-pilot? I agree that from an FAA perspective it was legal, but what rationale would the company have for this apparent contradiction in their internal rules?
 
Half Fast said:
I'm a newly minted hobbyist, so I know zip, nada, nothing about these sorts of operations. Is it common to have a SIC who isn't qualified to fly the plane?
Click to expand...

MassPilot said:
I can see this making sense with a plane certified for single-pilot operation (Citation, Phenom, etc) but a Learjet is two-pilot airplane. I don't know why it would ever be acceptable to not have two pilots fully capable of flying that airplane. That seems to go against the intent of the regs requiring two pilots in the first place.
Click to expand...

SICs in this case need to have a multi rating but do not need to have the type rating. The requirements are not the same. Hence, SIC vs. PIC. It's not just pilot flying vs. pilot not flying. I do not have a LRJET type rating and have never sat in one (front or back), but I can be a legal SIC in a Lear. I really don't know a ton about the regulations when it comes to jets and type ratings, but at least for most of the two-pilot GA jets, the SIC can just be a certificated pilot with a multi rating.

When you're saying fully qualified/capable pilot, what exactly do you mean? Someone can be a legal PIC? Someone who's just as good as the Captain? Curious where you're drawing the line here. The regs pretty clearly state what you need to have for PIC or SIC.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, but his company, by making him an SIC-0, said he could only be "pilot not flying." Why put someone in that seat that you're not willing to let fly the aircraft? Especially if the aircraft requires two pilots.

I'm completely ignorant of these sorts of operations and I'm just looking for better understanding. Why is it appropriate to have an SCI-0 in the right seat of a plane that, per its AFM, has a minimum crew of a pilot and a co-pilot? I agree that from an FAA perspective it was legal, but what rationale would the company have for this apparent contradiction in their internal rules?
Click to expand...
How is it a contradiction in their internal rules? Do you mean that you think company rules somehow contradict external rules?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
SICs in this case need to have a multi rating but do not need to have the type rating. The requirements are not the same. Hence, SIC vs. PIC. It's not just pilot flying vs. pilot not flying. I do not have a LRJET type rating and have never sat in one (front or back), but I can be a legal SIC in a Lear. I really don't know a ton about the regulations when it comes to jets and type ratings, but at least for most of the two-pilot GA jets, the SIC can just be a certificated pilot with a multi rating.

When you're saying fully qualified/capable pilot, what exactly do you mean? Someone can be a legal PIC? Someone who's just as good as the Captain? Curious where you're drawing the line here. The regs pretty clearly state what you need to have for PIC or SIC.
Click to expand...
Minor nit-pick, but it is a little more complicated. To serve as an SIC in a jet, you don’t have to have a type rating, but you at least have to complete the 61.55 training (including 3 landings).

For a 135 operation (like the accident company) it is a little more involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Half Fast said:
Yes, but his company, by making him an SIC-0, said he could only be "pilot not flying." Why put someone in that seat that you're not willing to let fly the aircraft? Especially if the aircraft requires two pilots.

...what rationale would the company have for this apparent contradiction in their internal rules?
Click to expand...
First, to be SIC you only need very basic training--enough to take over in an emergency. That is, three take offs and landings including one with an engine inoperative (Part 91). A VFR check ride, IIRC, for 135 ops. That's really pretty bare-bones basic familiarization. The next consideration is the qualifications of run of the mill line captains--are they even CFIs? Some aren't and some who are simply aren't qualified to teach jet operations the way management wants. Best to restrict the new SIC until management signs him/her off.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, but his company, by making him an SIC-0, said he could only be "pilot not flying." Why put someone in that seat that you're not willing to let fly the aircraft? Especially if the aircraft requires two pilots.

I'm completely ignorant of these sorts of operations and I'm just looking for better understanding. Why is it appropriate to have an SCI-0 in the right seat of a plane that, per its AFM, has a minimum crew of a pilot and a co-pilot? I agree that from an FAA perspective it was legal, but what rationale would the company have for this apparent contradiction in their internal rules?
Click to expand...

Because this isn't a piston single and there's a lot to be learned in terms of the various systems, keeping up with the airplane, getting used to the speed, etc.

From lesson 1 we're put in the left seat and we see training as "I fly, instructor saves me." That's one thing in a 172, but another thing in a Lear for someone who's making a significant upgrade. SIC is historically a role that you learn in and work towards being capable of PIC. You can get the type rating but not necessarily have all the experience and skill set to fly the aircraft well in real world flying.

I'll give an example. I was SIC in Commanders for a brief period of time. The way they operated was the equivalent of an SIC-2 - I basically left seated the dead head legs. Was I as good as the PIC at flying the plane when I started? No, definitely not, and it was better that I wasn't left seating with pax as it took a while to get the hang of landings. Could I have gotten the plane on the ground if he keeled over? Sure. But, I was learning with the goal of becoming PIC.

Of course, I quit and went back to engineering so that never happened.

Fearless Tower said:
Minor nit-pick, but it is a little more complicated. To serve as an SIC in a jet, you don’t have to have a type rating, but you at least have to complete the 61.55 training (including 3 landings).

For a 135 operation (like the accident company) it is a little more involved.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, but his company, by making him an SIC-0, said he could only be "pilot not flying." Why put someone in that seat that you're not willing to let fly the aircraft? Especially if the aircraft requires two pilots.
Click to expand...
Two pilots required doesn’t mean two PICs or even two flying pilots.

Jets are typically type certified for 2 pilots because of the workload. It’s a divide and conquer thing.

Also, a lot of times, insurance will dictate how many hours the pilot needs. I’ve come across that a few times as a low time Citation contractor. Some operators are fine with my working the radios, running the checklist and yanking the gear, but dot want to take a chance of me bouncing a landing. I understand that and don’t let it bug me.

But....to be an SIC-0 at almost 300 hours...that is very telling.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, but his company, by making him an SIC-0, said he could only be "pilot not flying." Why put someone in that seat that you're not willing to let fly the aircraft? Especially if the aircraft requires two pilots.
Click to expand...

Why hire someone type rated if you don't trust him enough to fly the plane on an empty leg ?


Him not being ''qualified' is an artifact of how the company worded their internal policy. What they wanted to say was 'empty legs', what they wrote on paper was 'flights without compensation'. This was a no-pax part 91 positioning flight. Only because the jet broker covered the cost, the internal policy was seemingly violated. The companies DO didn't even know that he had violated his own policy until the NTSB investigator pointed out that wrinkle to him.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, but his company, by making him an SIC-0, said he could only be "pilot not flying." Why put someone in that seat that you're not willing to let fly the aircraft? Especially if the aircraft requires two pilots.
Click to expand...

So what is going to happen when SIC0 has to do an LIFR approach after the captain has had an MI? Declare? Pray?

SIC0 just doesn't make sense to me. IMHO the guys in the back footing the bill deserve two pilots who can land the plane.
 
Bill Jennings said:
So what is going to happen when SIC0 has to do an LIFR approach after the captain has had an MI? Declare? Pray?

SIC0 just doesn't make sense to me. IMHO the guys in the back footing the bill deserve two pilots who can land the plane.
Click to expand...

These arguments sound a lot like saying airline pilots must all have a minimum of 10,000 hours of 121 time before they can start flying 121, which is the sort of talk that was going around after Colgan.

Legally, he could fly the plane. Legally, he could land the plane. He even had a Lear type rating as I recall. This particular pilot should not have been allowed in the plane in the first place, we all agree on that because of his poor skill set. That's a separate matter.

But as a concept, let's say that I went and got my LRJET type. I'm a halfway decent pilot for being a long haired hippie. So what experience do you think I should have that's not already required before being allowed to be an SIC?

Remember, that's an internal policy, not FAA.
 
Clark1961 said:
How is it a contradiction in their internal rules? Do you mean that you think company rules somehow contradict external rules?
Click to expand...

I think he was legal, but I just noticed this footnote:
47 Title 14 CFR 135.245 Second-in-Command qualifications, required a Second-in-Command hold at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating. According to the FAA Form 8410-3 dated August 7, 2015, the accident SIC required retraining in the Lear 35A stall series.​

To me (and again - I'm ignorant of this stuff), it would appear that the companies definition of an SIC-0 would preclude putting someone with that designation into the right seat of a plane that legally requires a co-pilot. It would seem logical (and logic may have nothing to do with this) that an SIC-1 designation would be the minimum qualification for a plane that requires a co-pilot.

Does the Lear AFM list the duties that a co-pilot must be capable of performing, and does that list include being capable of flying the plane?
 
Half Fast said:
To me (and again - I'm ignorant of this stuff), it would appear that the companies definition of an SIC-0 would preclude putting someone with that designation into the right seat of a plane that legally requires a co-pilot. It would seem logical (and logic may have nothing to do with this) that an SIC-1 designation would be the minimum qualification for a plane that requires a co-pilot.
Click to expand...

An internal policy has no bearing on FAA regulation.

Example: Per FAA regs, anyone with a multi-engine land rating, a high performance endorsement, and a complex endorsement can fly the 414.

Per MY policy, I will not let anyone who is not me take off or land the 414 (the exception being the new owner, of course, and once ownership transfers to him he can determine his own policy). However I might let an appropriately rated individual manipulate the controls during other phases of flight.

Not quite the same, but similar concept.
 
Half Fast said:
I never said, or even implied, that it did. As far as I can tell he was legal.

I was questioning the company's methods, not the legality.
Click to expand...

Then I guess I don't follow what you were saying. Why would the concept of an SIC-0 preclude them from putting someone qualified as SIC-0 in the right seat of an airplane requiring two pilots?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Then I guess I don't follow what you were saying. Why would the concept of an SIC-0 preclude them from putting someone qualified as SIC-0 in the right seat of an airplane requiring two pilots?
Click to expand...

Didn't the companies own docs say that an SIC-0 wasn't to fly the plane at all? I think that's what I read. If so, how can (s)he be a valid backup for the captain?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Then I guess I don't follow what you were saying. Why would the concept of an SIC-0 preclude them from putting someone qualified as SIC-0 in the right seat of an airplane requiring two pilots?
Click to expand...

It seemed to me that their own rules should preclude that, since internally as a company they don't consider an SIC-0 ready to fly the airplane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Example: Per FAA regs, anyone with a multi-engine land rating, a high performance endorsement, and a complex endorsement can fly the 414.
Click to expand...

I don't have those last two endorsements, are you implying that I can't be PIC in a 414? :popcorn: ;)
 
Bill Jennings said:
Didn't the companies own docs say that an SIC-0 wasn't to fly the plane at all? I think that's what I read. If so, how can (s)he be a valid backup for the captain?
Click to expand...

Half Fast said:
It seemed to me that their own rules should preclude that, since internally as a company they don't consider an SIC-0 ready to fly the airplane.
Click to expand...

The chief pilot (or someone within the organization, I forget who) said that they adopted that policy because it was one he had at a previous 135 he worked at. The idea was it allowed a pilot new to the aircraft to fully learn the SIC role (which if you're a good SIC is more than just fumbling around and screwing up the radios) and that would help learn the airplane in the real world environment, mentally get up to speed of thinking with the airplane, etc.

Like I said, I see merit to it and if I hopped into a Lear would probably want to spend the first 5-10 hours doing that myself. Does that make me a bad pilot? Lance admitted to having a steep learning curve as well when he hopped in the Lear for the first time. Does that make him a bad pilot? How do you remedy this? Do you suggest that they just go fly around with these new SICs at $2k per flight hour to help them build real world experience in the plane? Or should he be carted along in the back to fly up front on empty legs? How do you think the passengers would feel about that?

The SIC isn't completely about being a backup to the PIC. That's part of it, but the other part is understanding there's enough of a workload that you need two pilots to divide it in most cases.

I'm not saying this policy is a great idea, I'm just saying I can see some merit to it and it wouldn't preclude the company from putting them in the right seat on a charter.

mscard88 said:
I don't have those last two endorsements, are you implying that I can't be PIC in a 414? :popcorn: ;)
Click to expand...

Well there are other reasons why you can't be PIC in the 414 I fly. ;)
 
I still think people tend to live down to the low expectations someone sets for them.

I bet SIC-0 is tied to pay at that place, too. A Type-A self-starter would be trying to get it removed and working on learning. A lesser motivated person would say “Your airplane” a lot.

And if it’s tied to pay and people told that person it’d take a while to dump the 0, that’s a lesson right there in how to demotivate an employee, too.

Which wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest in this biz.

I’m not saying it’s right, but “I’ll fly this thing when they pretend to pay me...” is out there. See it in other businesses, too. Management 101.
 
Half Fast said:
I think he was legal, but I just noticed this footnote:
47 Title 14 CFR 135.245 Second-in-Command qualifications, required a Second-in-Command hold at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating. According to the FAA Form 8410-3 dated August 7, 2015, the accident SIC required retraining in the Lear 35A stall series.​

To me (and again - I'm ignorant of this stuff), it would appear that the companies definition of an SIC-0 would preclude putting someone with that designation into the right seat of a plane that legally requires a co-pilot. It would seem logical (and logic may have nothing to do with this) that an SIC-1 designation would be the minimum qualification for a plane that requires a co-pilot.

Does the Lear AFM list the duties that a co-pilot must be capable of performing, and does that list include being capable of flying the plane?
Click to expand...
It appears that you think the company policy may conflict with an external requirement namely the AFM.

Clearly the crew qualification requirements of the AFM and the FARs were met or the NTSB investigation report would have noted the discrepancy.

The company is free to say something along the lines of “you are legally qualified to manipulate the controls of the aircraft but we don’t want you to operate the yoke, rudder pedals, or throttle at this time.” In other words the company is free to have an internal standard that is higher than the regulatory standard for particular functions as long as all regulatory requirements are met. As far as I know, in the 135 world there is no requirement that both pilots actually fly the aircraft at any time. The 121 world has different expectations and training requirements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Clark1961 said:
The company is free to say something along the lines of “you are legally qualified to manipulate the controls of the aircraft but we don’t want you to operate the yoke, rudder pedals, or throttle at this time.” In other words the company is free to have an internal standard that is higher than the regulatory standard ...
Click to expand...

Why, of course they are! No argument.

But it seems, at least to me, contradictory for a company to set that standard and then assign that pilot to an aircraft that requires a co-pilot. They're effectively telling him, "Despite your legal credentials, we don't consider you qualified to actually fly this plane but we're going to make you the co-pilot anyway."

Seems to me a poor way to conduct business, but I'm not in that business.
 
Clark1961 said:
It appears that you think the company policy may conflict with an external requirement namely the AFM.

Clearly the crew qualification requirements of the AFM and the FARs were met or the NTSB investigation report would have noted the discrepancy.

The company is free to say something along the lines of “you are legally qualified to manipulate the controls of the aircraft but we don’t want you to operate the yoke, rudder pedals, or throttle at this time.” In other words the company is free to have an internal standard that is higher than the regulatory standard for particular functions as long as all regulatory requirements are met. As far as I know, in the 135 world there is no requirement that both pilots actually fly the aircraft at any time. The 121 world has different expectations and training requirements.
Click to expand...

In 121 SOPs and OPSECS are approved and signed off by the FAA. I flew 135 years ago so I'm not sure but wouldn't the company SOPs have to be approved and signed off by the FAA also? Therefore if they were not complied with the company could be violated?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
SICs in this case need to have a multi rating but do not need to have the type rating. The requirements are not the same. Hence, SIC vs. PIC. It's not just pilot flying vs. pilot not flying. I do not have a LRJET type rating and have never sat in one (front or back), but I can be a legal SIC in a Lear. I really don't know a ton about the regulations when it comes to jets and type ratings, but at least for most of the two-pilot GA jets, the SIC can just be a certificated pilot with a multi rating.

When you're saying fully qualified/capable pilot, what exactly do you mean? Someone can be a legal PIC? Someone who's just as good as the Captain? Curious where you're drawing the line here. The regs pretty clearly state what you need to have for PIC or SIC.
Click to expand...
You are not qualified to be SIC in a Lear jet.
Have to get training on systems and a minimum of three takeoffs and landings from a type rated pilot that endorses your logbook staying you have received the training.

As far as the SIC0 this company had I can see it going good or bad. After 250 hours in type the pilot should have progressed. If he legitimately couldn’t fly the aircraft by that point he shouldn’t have been in the cockpit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Half Fast said:
I'm a newly minted hobbyist, so I know zip, nada, nothing about these sorts of operations. Is it common to have a SIC who isn't qualified to fly the plane?
Click to expand...
Not usually, unless it’s a small type aircraft.
That said, some operators use very minimally qualified sic’s, especially if flying part 91.
 
dtuuri said:
...A VFR check ride, IIRC, for 135 ops.
Click to expand...
The operations checked are IFR operations, but fewer approaches and some other maneuvers are omitted.

A 135.297 check is the "IFR" check that a captain gets, but it's essentially the same as a 135.293 equipment/proficiency check everybody takes whether they're operating IFR or even VFR only.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not usually, unless it’s a small type aircraft.
That said, some operators use very minimally qualified sic’s, especially if flying part 91.
Click to expand...
I have ridden in the back of a Falcon 10 operated under 91. The PIC was a full time guy and the SIC was a part timer. They alternated legs. It was easy to tell who was flying. The PIC knew what the aircraft was going to do. The SIC knew what he wanted the aircraft to do and hoped it would do that...

I was glad to hear when they sold the aircraft. Disposing of the aircraft was a whole ‘nuther story.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
An internal policy has no bearing on FAA regulation.

Example: Per FAA regs, anyone with a multi-engine land rating, a high performance endorsement, and a complex endorsement can fly the 414.

Per MY policy, I will not let anyone who is not me take off or land the 414 (the exception being the new owner, of course, and once ownership transfers to him he can determine his own policy). However I might let an appropriately rated individual manipulate the controls during other phases of flight.

Not quite the same, but similar concept.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the 414 also require a high-altitude endorsement? :)

I think that this operator's SIC-0 policy is sound in theory. Although I am a lowly ASEL pilot, I think that a great way to start learning a new plane is to read out the checklists and watch a master fly it. Unfortunately, the captain on this flight was not a good role model, he disregarded the SIC-0 policy, and the company did not adequately supervise its captains to ensure they were following the policy. (Among many other problems, of course. For example, 250 hours of reading out checklists and watching a master fly the plane should have been more than enough to graduate at least to the company's SIC-1 level and be the pilot flying on empty legs. And the PIC should have had enough SA to know well before the SIC's third request to transfer control that the SIC was behind the airplane and that the airplane was not in a position to complete the circle-to-land successfully.)

I have seen the same thing in other industries. The company gets a lawyer to write a safety policy that will protect them from liability, but the only copy of it is in pristine shape because nobody at the company has ever so much as read it and everyone on the ground ignores it all the time to get the job done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Half Fast said:
Why, of course they are! No argument.

But it seems, at least to me, contradictory for a company to set that standard and then assign that pilot to an aircraft that requires a co-pilot. They're effectively telling him, "Despite your legal credentials, we don't consider you qualified to actually fly this plane but we're going to make you the co-pilot anyway."

Seems to me a poor way to conduct business, but I'm not in that business.
Click to expand...

Conversely, would you assign them to an aircraft that requires a single pilot by themselves? :) :) :)
 
iamtheari said:
Doesn't the 414 also require a high-altitude endorsement? :)
Click to expand...
There are also training/checking and experience provisions that negate the need for an endorsement...much like the training/checking provisions that have allowed me to fly legally since my last Flight Review in 1985.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Jets are typically type certified for 2 pilots because of the workload. It’s a divide and conquer thing.
Click to expand...

This. It was one of the things that surprised me when I got in the right seat of a Hawker - I had always been under the same mistaken impression of most small-GA pilots that the PM mainly read checklists and talked on the radio. There was a LOT more to it than that.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
This. It was one of the things that surprised me when I got in the right seat of a Hawker - I had always been under the same mistaken impression of most small-GA pilots that the PM mainly read checklists and talked on the radio. There was a LOT more to it than that.
Click to expand...
Yup, it’s up to you to make sure the coffee and canàpes are ready then tell the line guy to pump the lav...and don’t forget to drain the ice chests at the end of the day.
 
The NTSB released this video regard the crash:


Nothing that we haven't already hashed out here, but the whole flight was a mess for so many reasons.

The Captain was an inept pilot and if you look at his records, had failed at essentially every level of his flying career. Somehow he managed to end up Captain on a Lear (he'd had some failures relating to that too, as I recall) with an SIC who was new to the plane and also had failures along the way, generally a weak pilot. But, the Captain seemed unaware of his inabilities.

It was an accident waiting to happen. Reality is they could've saved it if they realized how poorly they were set up and just asked to be resequenced.
 
They were about 15 or 20 seconds from arriving at the threshold of Runway 6 when the pilot (calling him the captain seems inappropriate) took the controls and initiated his cowboy turn to realign with Runway 1.

The pilot's failure (twice) to accept the handover from the SIC is just one of the inexplicable events that occurred in the last few minutes of the flight.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top