Beech 1900 SIC
 

My question is do South African pilots require a SIC type in order to act as SIC on the 1900? Another way to ask is with a U.S. commercial multi IF (without a 1900 SIC rating) and a SA validation can a person legally fly SIC on the 1900? As I understand it the SA validation, validates what you have on your U.S. liscence, and without having a 1900 SIC endorsement it would not validate you to fly the 1900 SIC?

Thanks in Advance

Flyingwrench.

The 1900 has become quite a contentious issue at SACAA.

Reason being, (no, I have not personally seen it), there is a factory supplement that came out a while ago, stating that the 1900 C & D are a 2 crew where there is 9 pax and more.

There is also an AIC out, (long standing), that also makes both the C&D multi crew in SA with 9 pax and more, which then does away with the single crew policy.

There is a meeting on the 16th, where this will de discussed/debated/argued in great lengths as to who is right and who is wrong.

Apparently, (hearsay), the FAA and ICAO are adopting the SA policy of anything above 5700kg being Part 121.

Sorry that I cannot be more clear on this, but after the 16th will be able to give you a more permanent answer.

Goffel

The Above is very interesting. Is this going to change the 'comm Captain' status the 1900 is carrying in the contract industry at the moment(should the part 121 apply), where 1 or 2 companys are employing very low time captains on the 1900, paying them peanuts!

interesting
 

interesting indeed! good move towards needing an atpl when you carrying more than 9 pax into places like kabul and other contract hotspots! lots of comm only no atp pilots poling left seat there for an sa operation! will be a good one to watch from the sidelines

This can only be a good thing, look forward to seeing the outcome!

Thanks for the replies. Still confused though. Who (requirements) are sitting in the right seat on the 1900 that are ZS registered? Are they required to be SIC typed? I know the US and SA rules are diff just trying to find out the validation process. IE see first post. Right now are copilots logging SIC? Interesting to find out what the meeting on the 16th brings.
Thanks

All fo's operating on south africa 1900's Hold P1 ratings on the aircraft, as the sacaa will not issue a p2 rating due to the fact it is a certified single crew aircraft, therefore unless we are carrying more then 9 pax, you do not require a second pilot. Having said that, most operators in SA require a second pilot according to their operations manual(regardless whether they carrying +-9 pax) According to a recent audit, the person performing our audit stated that the fo's should be logging P1 for any flying on the 1900 when they are carrying less then 9 pax on board, and P2 if the aircraft is carrying more then 9 pax, this being due to the fact that SA law requires 2 pilots on any commercial flight carrying more then 9 pax. By law, if you are carrying more then 9 pax, there has to be a co-pilot(P2)
I am no Law boffin, but this is the way I understand it, Please correct me if I am wrong.

ya thats a bit confusing old chap? how can a co-jo log pic if less than 9 pax and then must log p2 when more than 9 pax on board. surely you can only log pic as a co-jo if you are doing a PICUS flight for upgrade purposes and providing you have done a MCC course? correct me if im wrong but thats how it was explained to me by the CAA official

Ya, I agree very confusing! The audit was conducted by 3 CAA officials as you put it. Considering the company employs about 40 1900 fo's. The whole reason is as follows: If you are carrying less than 9 pax, there is no requirement for an fo(the 1900 is certified for single crew ops) meaning it is not an mcc aircraft, the aircraft cannot be operated in full from the right seat, the only reason you would ever require an fo is when you are carrying more then 9 pax, and this is a sa law requirement!!! Words from the horses mouth, You have to log P2 for any flight that requires a P2 by law, if you are acting in the capacity of Co-Pilot, Hahaha, this debate could go on for hours, days and even weeks/months. Every one has been told a different story by the caa, the out come from the 'meeting'on the 16th will hopefully resolve alot of these issues once and for all!!!:ok:

Logging in this way may lead to invalidity of your log book in other parts of the world that don’t recognize this hap hazard way of logging hours. Log what the manufacture says the AC needs. In other words if the manual says 2 crew log it, if it doesn’t then don’t. This way you can always hand your log book over to anyone with a smile. :)
I wouldn’t go by SACAA they could change their minds next month and then what, you have invalid hours in your logbook. :ugh:
Just by the way I have seen a 1900 P2 rating in a SA licence!!!??? Go figure:=

I agree with oompilot 100%, It happened on the Be20 years ago, and alot of pilots ended up with a lot of p2 time on the 200, which these days the caa are not to happy to accept!!!I to have seen a p2 rating, in fact, when I got my 1900 rating 3 years ago, I was issued with a P2 rating by the caa, based on the fact I never had an ATP. The only thing i am not to sure about is, the 1900 is certified a single crew aircraft by the manufacture, so are you saying you can or cant log P2 time???I have a little P2 time on the aircraft, the caa hasnt got a problem with it, on provision the pilot with the p2 time is issued with a letter from the company he/she flys for stating the aircraft is operated as a multi crew aircraft accompanied by caa approved multi crew sops.

So some guys are having trouble with the caa recognizing their p2 time on the 1900? I am flying on a SA validation of my US license and I have 1900 "SIC privileges only" on my license. I know the FAA accepts the time. Under the operation we need two crew. So that means that the copilot is a required crewmember and should log the time accordingly.

SIC privileges only would be considered P2 then? Does SA require the copilot to be typed (P1 or P2) ?

Still Confused :confused:

The co pilot will have to have a P1 rating, as the caa only issues P1 ratings on the aircraft, they do not issue a P2 rating as it is a certified single crew aircraft. The caa will recognise P2 time on the 1900 provided you are operating the 1900 for a company which has caa approved multi crew sops.

Ok great thanks. Wish I would have gotten a PIC rating on the 1900, instead I am stuck with SIC only. Now the Copilot with the P1 rating, can they log PIC for the legs they are pilot fllying?

I think the best way to do it, is to provisionally log the hours either as PIC if you are PIC or as Copilot if you are SIC on that individual flight if engaged in multicrew operations. If the aircraft is certified for single pilot operations, that just implies that the aircraft can be operated this way (and that it is not a requirement to hold an ATP to act as PIC) - if any flightoperation decides to implement a multicrew operation, it does not make sense to penelise the guy doing his job in the right hand seat.

Another thing to remember is that the 1900 does not comply with FAR 25 performance certification requirements. JAA require 500 hrs on a FAR 25 certified aircraft to unfreeze an ATP. I just mention this on the sideline to add to the discussion. As SACAA seemingly want to go the JAA way, this is what might be in store in the future.

Direct line to the Pentagon (or the looney asylum).
 

Flyingwrench.

Sent you a pm with my direct line and cell number.
Give me a call and I will explain the new situation to you.
.
Yes, for the others, depending on the meeting, 1900 will definitely need an ATP to command....

For the ATP pilots, your salaries are about to double as you will be in greeeeeat demand.

But just hold the ponies until after the 16th meeting for any decisions are made.

Goffel

I think the easiest way to understand what to log is:

PIC is for the person who is given the responsibilty as the commander/captain.

SIC is for the other person.

It doesnt matter who is pilot flying/handling pilot, it is what position/rank/level of responsibility you have been given on the plane that determines what you log.

For example, if there were 2 ATPL pilots flying the 1900, one would be dedicated as the captain, the other the fo, and only the captain could log PIC time and the other guy SIC.

Thats how it works under JAR.

:hmm:

Of course, none of this brouhaha would have happened in the first place if the aircraft weight and licence requirements of the past had been left unchanged. The old Senior Commercial Licence was a little bit of a peculiar permit to fly and perhaps unique to South Africa. But its existence was more to give a fillip to the ex air force chaps than anything else. Those poor blokes really do absorb bad habits, if only by a process of osmosis. I remember an ex Rhodesian Hunter pilot with whom I used to fly. Every time we winged our way up to Salisbury in the F27; he was forever standing up on his seat in the cockpit regaling us with the reminiscences of one of his sorties over Rhodesian villages. Since his air force activities had mostly consisted of exterminating civilians, this did not go down too well with the cabin attendants who all lived in Gaberone. We finally took the wind out of his sales a little by convincing him that I had flown with the Fleet Air Arm and, as everyone knows, absolutely any idiot can land on a runway but, well a carrier and not with a harrier? That, to paraphrase Kipling, takes a man, old son!
Back to the point then, which is that irrespective of all the braggadacio of linguistic screaming and yelling that will probably greet what is a brave decision on the part of the CAA; it simply makes no more common sense to have an aircraft such as a B1900 flown by a lowly CPL holder than it would to permit single crew passenger carriage for hire or reward. To have arrived at the point where the subject even arose, let alone became a point of contention does nothing other than remind one that something, perhaps approaching an error of judgement, occured in the past.
It is noticeable furthermore that the minimum qualifications for left hand seat positions has been decreasing quite markedly in aviation in general on a world wide basis and seemingly quite noticeably in South Africa as well. This tendency of course becomes specifically quite hazardous when two crew of similar inexperience are placed together operating in the cockpit under conditions of stress and in a weather situation which might be less than suitable for a champagne picnic. This reduction in standards has been matched, parri passu, by the aviation construction business which has consistently produced aircraft which no more resemble an aeroplane of grace and style than does a duck billed platypus. Indeed, it might be true to say that, in general, today's aircraft are equally as ugly as that strange antipodean creature. In fact, the similarity between machine and mammal may be said to end with the bill itself. For today's machines that fly, as distinct from flying machines, require no more input or intelligence to operate than that which might reasonably be found in the hands of a small boy at a Battlestar Galactica pinball machine in an amusement arcade.
In an effort to carry these helpful points one step further, it might indeed be a most satisfactory contribution to the continuance of safe aviation practice if legislation were introduced to ensure that no appropriate licence holder could act as pilot in command of an aircraft required to be operated with two flight crew unless he had already accumulated five hundred hours of flight time in an aircraft of the same type, class and category as the one in which it was intended that he should operate as Commander. This would have the effect of ensuring that companies only employed as First Officers those in possession of an Airline Transport Licence so that after the requisite five hundred hours flying, effectively as Commander and Captain, a transition from right hand seat to that on the left could smoothly be made. This policy was pursued by Bristow's in Nigeria on the Dornier 328 turbo props and jets and the system worked well. It would also ensure that Commercial Pilots would of necessity be required to gather greater experience of aviation at the instructional and basic charter level while at the same time affording a well deserved degree of employment protection to those who hold the coveted ATPL.:E

Addendum:
As an interviewing Chief Pilot of a candidate for employment who is the holder of a CPL and who has flown misguidedly in command of a B1900, one supposes that his time on that aircraft should actually be divided by a factor of two to compensate for the fact that he should not actually have been flying as pilot in command in the first place? That seems a fair enough!:{
;)

I know the meeting is on Wednesday, but had a chat to Mathew from Testing Standards today regarding the 1900's and the meeting.

He is adamant that the 1900 is a single crew operation and that is how it is going to stay.

So you may definitely carry on comanding with a Comm.

This may change in Dec/Jan where the weight (5700kg), might be brought into place.

If they decide to change things in someones wisdom.....I will then know it is time to change and hang my head in embarrassment.

Goffel.:(

any news from the meeting today?