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?

Altp For 1900d As A Commander
 

Bad news for the Comm 1900 captains.

The meeting held today has brought bad news for the guys with a comm flying as a captain on the 1900D...(C to follow soon).

As of today, any person caught flying a 1900D as a captain with only a comm, will be in contravention of the CAT''s / CAR'S.

It was debated for 90 mins on the subject and as the law is very very clear on the privalliges of a comm pilot / ATP and flying multi crew aeroplanes.

The 1900D is a factory certified multi crew aircraft,(9 seats or more), and above 5700kg, thus requiring a ALTP as the commander.

This has now come from the commissioner.

Some of the operators were informed of the commissioners decision and stance on this, this afternoon,

As there are people who do not like what has happened, you are at liberty to apply for an exemption from this law.

The unfortunate thing is, the whole industry new that this day was coming.
Some definitely did something about it, others carried on hoping that it would just go away.
As it is a law, zero grace can be given, except in the event of a exemtion from the commissioner.

Goffel.

Great news for ATP captains!!!!!sorry for all the comm captains.

So SACAA has decided to go in contravention to JAA and FAA. The aircraft is FAR 23 certified and SFAR41 as commuter aircraft catogory. So 2 crew are mandatory in part 135/121 operations, however the PIC does not require ATP overseas.

I do not mind as I am just starting out as FO anyway, busy with my ATP. However some SA companies will suffer due to PIC shortage. At least now there is clarity to the subject.

well well well...... very interesting! this is a good move I think better for us with ATP's, but Solenta and Norse Air are going to kuk off!!!!! Loads of CPL's poling left seat there!

:hmm:

That's really going to put some hyenas into the baby birds' nests.
Many thanks to G for keeping people posted. :eek:

some clarity with facts
 

Here is the link to the actual FAA certification certificate for the B1900 C and D stating single pilot certification ( see page 39 )...

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...FILE/A24CE.pdf

Here is the link from the FAA library stating the B1900 series ( C and D ) can be tested as single pilot, ( read page 5... F (1)-(5).)
B1900C is certified under SFAR41 and the B1900D in the "Commuter Category"... ( see page 2...para 3 note 6 (f) )

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...87103D-C13.pdf

SA CAA Part 61.05.5 (5) (c)

(c) act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations in any

aeroplane certified for single-pilot operation;
ICAO Annex 1, UK CAA, and JAR ( FCL 1.150 Priveleges and conditions ) note (3) allow a Commercial pilot to "act as pilot-in-command in commercial air transportation of any single pilot aeroplane; "

By adding a second pilot, does that change the aircraft certification ? NO.
Does it increase the safety margin ? YES

It defies logic that a 250hr Comm is allowed to fly a B1900D with 9 pax as a single pilot as P1, yet add one pax and suddenly this is unsafe and he now needs 1500hrs and an ATPL !? What if he has 9 pax and 1 ton of cargo, his TOW will still be well above 12500lbs (5700kg) yet he may still fly as P1 single pilot with a Comm ?^%*&^
What about B1900D Cargo aircraft - they don't have more than 9 seats ?
All SA 1900 operators operate the B1900 with 2 pilots, but the fact remains, it is still a single-pilot certified aircraft.

For an aircraft to be MCC certified, there is a huge amount of certification requirements, equipment fit, performance requirements ( JAA 2.1% FAA 2.4% 2nd stage climb etc ) The B1900 does NOT meet these, therefore never was, nor will it ever be, MCC certified.
You cannot test for ATPL under JAA on the B1900 as it is not MCC, it is a single pilot certified aircraft.

Obviously this interpretation of the law would adversely affect Operators, and pilots alike. What happens to those pilots already operating as Captain on the B1900 with a Comm and P1 rating, some of these guys have been doing this for years, the CAA has approved AOC's and Operations Manuals and logbooks and licences like this for years.
If it is decided that a B1900 Captain will now need an ATPL, after being told by the CAA many times, they consider it a single-pilot certified aircraft and a Comm Pilot CAN fly as a Captain, there would need to be a reasonable transition period for Operators and crew alike to meet this restriction. Until then, the status quo should remain.

The most important thing here is to reach a safe, sensible, legal agreement that complies with the law, and doesn't kill an industry already reeling from the effects of oil price increases, redundancies etc.
Just look at SAA's latest financial results..........

i agree with the above post, it is not going to be easy now for the operators. what about the guys in the field now flying left seat without a atpl? does the CAA really expect one to call them home? what agreement was reached about a transition period if any?

:hmm:

If the CAA has decided that the B1900, in commercial operations for hire or reward, should be a two crew operation with the Commander having an ATPL, then that would seem to be something which lies within its authority. A CAA of any country is entitled to err, if that is the apposite word, on the side of caution which is, in effect what the SA CAA has done.
(It might be relevant, especially in terms of FAA regulations, to remember that a CPL holder does not have to have an instrument rating for his licence to be valid.)
Arguments to the effect that because the FAA allow single crew/IFR/commercial operations in a B1900 (if they do) are somewhat disingenuous. South Africa has its own regulations and its CAA is perfectly entitled to make whatever changes it deems fit to what has, up to now seemed to have been more of a tendacious arrangement than a legal prerogative.

It is difficult to see how exemptions could be made. There hardly seems to be flexibility in determining which CPL holder is better qualified to fly such an aircraft single crew than another. One suspects that the easiest solution for the CAA will simply be not to grant exemptions at all. A period of grace would perhaps be a more realistic option but even that would be difficult to implement and there would inevitably be enormous clamour for extensions.
It is somewhat difficult to see that the CAA, in arriving at its decision has allowed itself any room for manouevre. From this then, must one conclude that the CAA does not seek room for such flexibility?
This is, of course, all very distressing for those pilots who find themselves in a position of some licencing awkwardness. It is also presumably a difficult time for the operators. Presumably and as of this morning, any insurance cover on B1900s will be automatically void when flown by a CPL for hire or reward?
It is true, however, to say that this matter has been bandied about for a long time. There has been opportunity for those in the flying positions in question to obtain their ATPLs. The writing has hardly just appeared on the wall as it did at Balthasar's Feast.
Therein perhaps lies a possible saving grace if one were to be sought. It seems obvious enough that the CAA have predicted the onslaught from operators and pilots that their decision will cause. It would be reasonable for the CAA to wish to draw a line under this matter as soon as possible. Suppose therefore that the CAA were to grant a temporary exemption to any Commercial Pilot who had, at the least, obtained a partial pass in his ATPL examinations and then set a reasonable time limit, six months or one year perhaps, for the completion of the licence. Such an action would ease the situation insofar as operators are concerned, possibly make life a little easier for the CAA and afford recognition to those pilots who, having seen which way the wind was blowing, had decided to do something about it?:)

I completely agree with all said above. The fact remains the aircraft is over 5700kg(well over I may add....) I also agree with the fact that there are alot of very highly experienced captains flying 1900's for SA operators that do not have SACAA/ICAO ATPL licenses, but hold FAA/JAA atpl's instead. I feel desperately sorry for these pilots. What must be kept in mind is a lot of operators in SA have been getting away with murder, employing 1200-1300hr comm captains on the 1900(where 900hrs of the respective captains experience lies in the circuit, doing touch and goes in a TIRED old c150) and paying them less then half the market rate, because quiet frankly, they do not have the experience to be in that position, realizing that, the pilot accepts the salary on the grounds he/she 'needs the hrs'. What this does to the guys with the right amount of experience(not mentioning ATPL)is career threatening, suddenly experience means nothing, operators would rather employ inexperienced pilots, on the grounds that it is legal, and pay them peanuts!!!!!!! instead of the employing pilots with the right amount of experience and having to pay a little more. This law(having to hold an atp to command a 1900D)will STOP this abuse!!!!!!and companys will be forced to employ experienced pilots and pay the market rate. Having flown for quiet a few years, it is always drummed into a pilot,that if there are two conflicting laws, you always apply the most restrictive of the two, the aircraft may be a "single crew certified" aircraft, BUT its over 5700kgs as well, which law overides which???

:hmm:

I have serious doubts but that, had such crew/s been flying with their levels of experience during a northern European winter, there would have been some very unfunny, fun and games.:ooh:

Solenta is 100% correct. I doubt that a captain with 3000hrs on type with only a CPL/IF will suddenly become a better or more qualified pilot when writing those SACAA ATP exams. However he will make himself more marketeble for true FAR25 aircraft if he does. So better do it now than when it changes to the new Part61 exams in January.

One thing uncertain however is, that voices I hear from oversees (JAA) state, that SFAR41 commuter hours are counted towards unfreezing of an ATP, but you can still have a CPL/IF captain flying the aircraft PIC.

My question is now, how big is the transition from a 1900 to a true FAR 25 aircraft (say a Dash8 or Canadair Jet) for the pilots ?

The law says?????????????
 

Solenta.......please take out your 1900D Raytheon manual...go to Limitations...page 30.

I PILOT: All passanger seats in excess of nine (9) must be rendered nonoccupiable by "DO NOT OCCUPY" seat belt tube assembly...(anotherwords, more than 9 pax, now makes it a certified multi crew ???)

If you can convince the Commissioner that the 1900D is in actual fact a single crew operation with more than 9 pax's, then I am sure you will get an exemption.

If you cannot convince the Commissioner of such, I am pretty sure your exemption will be turned down.

The privilages of a commercial pilot is very clear in saying that one may act as a co-pilot in a certified multi-crew operation.

Yes, it does also say that a comm pilot may act as a commander on a certified single crew operation, regardless of weight..(a figure that was ommitted from version 8 of the up-dates.

But lets be fair, every operator of a 1900 has known for years that this little loophole would be closed, and in fact last year, the same month as we are in now, the same was debated and the industry was told that it would be clamping down....in other words, the operators have definitely had enough time to get ATP pilots to drive their machines.

If you start giving out exemptions for the 1900's, what is stopping the E120 operators asking for the same as the weight difference is not that much....or any other operators of a/c above 5700kg's.

I am pretty sure that there are going to be ATP pilots out there watching this whole debate with interest, just waiting for people to get exemption, then they will pounce on the CAA with a law suite as their jobs are being taken away from them by a comm pilot.

What is good for one, wil be just as good for the other.

The fact is, there are ATP pilots out there looking for jobs, but are not prepared to work for a comm pilot's salary....and rightly so...they studied, slaved and passed....so why accept the comm salary.

The fact of the matter is...it is a law....and an operator/pilot must obey the law of his country.

Goffel...(the above is my personal opinions only).

:hmm:

Of course, man to man, a pilot with 3,000 hours on a B1900 and an ATPL is a better and more qualified pilot than one with a CPL and the same time.

He is better educated and he has demonstrated qualities of ambition, initiative and perseverance which the other has not!:D

Quick question for Goffel: will p2 time on the 1900D now count in full or will it still be halved?

81

:hmm:

One does get very confused with all this FAR stuff. Tendency arises then to let airmanship and common sense prevail.
Transitioning from a machine such as a B1900 to a Dash 8 piece of kit shouldn't pose too much problem so long as the electronic ergonomics of the cockpits are fairly similar. An FMS and its usual operation in an SOP can take a little getting used to as well.
Same goes, in principle, as between the B1900 and a baby jet but I think that most people with experience on a B1900 would need to cycle a little faster during the first few hours of conversion to the Canadair or a B737 for example.
There's a bit of a technique difference between flying an instantly responsive turbo prop and a oscillatorally (?) inclined jet.
Then there is that which seems to be never mentioned in South African aviation training terms. It's the hardest bit of the lot and it's called Line Training.:suspect:

Next talks on Tuesday
 

Unreal......the left hand does not agree with the right hand.....it is so enjoyable to see the likes of boffins arguing the facts (or no facts), of law and the little interpretations.
..
Good news for the 1900 comm pilots though.
..
Bad news for the 1900 ATP pilots looking for work...(and that there are genuinely a few who have been in contact).
..
Round number 6 starts on Tuesday morning....:ugh:

Goffel.....sitting on the beach in Plett.

:ooh:

Is it too much to conjecture that, in the middle of this hiatus, every SA CPL flying a 1900 'in command' has signed up for an ATPL examination date?:E

Cavorting Spotty.....and to think that they got a discount on the exam fees....all you had to do was have a letter from your company saying that you were a poooooor 1900 D comm peeeeloooot and could not afford the fees.

This entitled you to 50% discount on the exam fees, the pass mark had been lowered to 65%, but could be lowered even more if you had flown the C model as well.

And now this has all been taken away due to round number 6....no more discount.

Eisch.:E

:hmm:

At the risk of posting an unpopular post, a terror which usually does not act as a disincentive, one has to say this. The SA licence would seem to be accepted in most countries in the sub continent. Certainly, as far as one can determined, the SA ticket is highly revered south of the Sahara and one is constantly bumping into fellows hanging around downstairs at Waterfall Park, waiting for their treasured validations. That being the case and bearing in mind that African Africa, of such a term may be used, is considerbly bigger than Europe or JAR land, it seems that the SA CAA fees are remarkably low. Bearing in mind the territorial size of the land mass over which the SA licence reigns and balancing that versatility against a JAR licence, should not the SA CAA fees rise tenfold to reflect proportional representation?
Furthermore, is it not reasonable to expect that, if an experienced pilot writes a technical examination, his standard of knowledge might equally reasonably expected to be higher than a pilot with no such experience? Such a justified assumption should then logically lead to an increase in the pass mark required rather than a decrease?:cool:

Bored Mr Cheetah? :E

Trawling for turds is most unbecoming.....:}