SIC Privilages Light jet Pvt Ops

[nomorecatering]

If one buys a light jet from the US. C500, Beechjet class. As part of the purchase you get the PIC qualified as per normal. The candidate for co-pilot in FAA area only needs a PVT certificate with ME Instrument Land, plus the required type training. Which according to 14 CFR 61.55 is simply 3 circuits minim and exposure to a few abnormal situations and the normal ground school.

So how is that SIC converted to CASA Part 61. A multi crew course is a requirement, but I cant work out what else needs to be done. Have read all of Part 61 and it seems that the co-pilot needs to do the full command course. Any referernce i can find relates to the SIC in an airline type operation. I'm asking about a strictly private op.

Have I read it wrong?

Are any multi crew courses overseas acceptable to CASA.

[601]

The early model Citations and Beechjets required 2 endorsed (minimum a command and a co-pilot) crew unless the PIC was "single pilot approved".

[Mach E Avelli]

Unless it has changed, in FAAland a pilot could act as SIC on private operations on any aircraft above 12500 lb without a type rating, subject only to the basic familiarisation described in the first post here.
However, I do not see CASA recognising this as a qualification.
You MAY be able to get them to recognise co pilot time logged in an N registered aircraft if you, for example, flew on a ferry flight. Get it in writing.

[Dick Smith]

You are correct. In nearly all cases no special co pilot endorsement is required

Once again far more unique expensive CASA requirements when no safety reason shown

It's how you send an industry broke!

[auto throttle]

I'm with CASA on this one. How can anyone allow a pilot to fly an aircraft who has no idea of what they are doing? Flying 3 circuits doesn't make you competent to fly a complex high performance jet. Its just ridiculous and unsafe. These owners who want to spend millions of dollars on a jet and then not want to pay to have professional and qualified crew need a kick in the backside. How many accidents do we need to have before these private owners and pilots begin to listen?

[greybeard]

Having 'TRAINED" so called low hour pilots onto a fast private jet equivalent I can agree a full endorsement is a minimum, and then some line training to achieve a reasonable level of competence.

As the owner you choose what standard you will afford, which impacts on safety, insurance and possibly your life expectancy.

The choice of the trainer could be critical as well.

:=:ok:

[das Uber Soldat]

I'm with CASA on this one. How can anyone allow a pilot to fly an aircraft who has no idea of what they are doing? Flying 3 circuits doesn't make you competent to fly a complex high performance jet. Its just ridiculous and unsafe. These owners who want to spend millions of dollars on a jet and then not want to pay to have professional and qualified crew need a kick in the backside. How many accidents do we need to have before these private owners and pilots begin to listen?
Are the laws of physics different in the United States where this is exactly the situation?

[Dick Smith]

Yair. The Americans are so stupid. They only got to the moon and built the 747. We built the Nomad.

They clearly have no idea about aviation. Incredible fluke that they manufacture most GA and Business aircraft.

Make sure we keep our unique double the cost regulations. Look at Bankstown. It's booming with new Business aviation aircraft.

Dont harmonise with the lower cost FAA regs- they may get Aussie aviation booming again

[PA39]

Nice vent Dick...so very true~

[Runaway Gun]

After only a 2-3 day course I was allowed to fly Right Hand Seat on the Royal Air Force Bae125. It was really a Pilot Assistant job, and you were monitored, but an exhaustive conversion was not required.

[auto throttle]

I'm not sure what building rockets and 747s has to do with it, but since you brought it up I'm sure you will find even NASA will want fully trained crew, I somehow don't think 3 touch and go's will suffice...go figure. And if you talk to Boeing I'm certain even they will say it takes at least 2 well trained pilots, and not just someone sitting there as ballast.


Dick, I normally like and agree with everything you say, but this is just plain wrong. Just because the Americans do it, doesn't mean it is safe, and what about the rest of the world? I guess everyone is wrong to think a plane that requires two pilots must have two competent pilots? You will also find it is becoming increasingly difficult in the US to have just a safety pilot because of insurance requirements, even they know it is not safe. These are the guys having to cough up the money because of incompetent pilots and owners diminishing safety. I'm sure it is just a matter of time before the FAA catch up, unfortunately it takes time to change the rules as you well know.


I can see it now, Dick Smith airlines. Safety brief is complete then the captain announces, "Oh, by the way, there is actually only one of us able to fly this plane today". Why not go one step further and just say the first pax to the right hand seat gets their airfare for half price?


These private jets are having guys come out with a CPL, and have no idea of SOPs. Now we are putting them in planes with 3 circuits and having no idea of the aircraft systems and how to do a missed approach or a single engine approach, the list goes on and on. Now what happens if the only competent guy on board becomes incapacitated? The other guy may land the plane but how high are the risks now. People spend $1-70 mil US, surely $25-40k for an additional type rating to have 2 crew and greatly mitigate the risks isn't asking that much?


Sounds like a it's just a case of the owners not wanting to pay and stuff the public safety. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. It's not rocket science :)

[auto throttle]

Runaway gun, at least there was some sort of course involved. All these guys have to do is 3 circuits. There is no assessment of competency, or standards to have to pass. Nothing to say a landing must be made in the touch down zone for example, or any other safety factor considered.

[LeadSled]

How many accidents do we need to have before these private owners and pilots begin to listen? Autothrottle,

Tell us about all those accidents we have had, with private owners and pilots of this class of aircraft??
After all, the US/FAA accident record beats Australia hands down.

Now what happens if the only competent guy on board becomes incapacitated?


Crikey, we better ban all single pilot operations, how can you say a life lost in a light jet is more valuable than in a C-172.

Tootle !!

PS: Last time I looks, EASALand, UK style, had provisions for a "pilot's assistant" on light jets, with very minimal requirements, don't quote me, but I think the minimum was a PPL and a radio license.

[auto throttle]

We are going to run out of pages if I listed the accidents. I wasn't disputing if they are private pilots or not. I'm disputing a pilot with no knowledge or training in an aircraft being allowed to fly it and the safety implications it has. It's just a matter of time until more accidents happen as a result, so why let it happen? Why wouldn't you want pilots flying a plane who know what they are doing? It's just luck that there haven't been more accidents. If you were flying a citation over the pacific for example and had a double generator failure, wouldn't you want that guy to be able to help out or just roll the dice and hope you do it all correctly on your own? I've had a catastrophic engine failure and I can tell you right now, it's far safer to have a competent guy next to you and not someone there for a joy ride and a possible liability. It really is a no brainier. It's a costs vs safety case.

[Capt Fathom]

Jeez A/T, I'm surprised you get out of bed in the morning! It's a dangerous world out there! :rolleyes:

[dhavillandpilot]

Auto Throttle have you ever owned an aircraft let alone a light jet?

Your post sounds like a plea for employment.

As someone who has previously owned a C550 that a was both single pilot and multi crew approved, I can assure you that it is easier to fly than a C441.

My experience of private owners flying these type of aircraft is that they usually go to the likes of Flight Safety.

In fact there was one owner of a C550 who was a private pilot and who flew the aircraft better than some of professional crew we employed.

From my recollection the only light jet to ever fatally crash in Australia was a C500 around the Atherton Tablelands. The pilot was a very experience commercial pilot who "knew it all".

[auto throttle]

Haven't owned one and certainly not looking for a job, no idea how you think raising an idea about safety is looking for a job. I've flown many different types jets. I'm not bagging out private pilots and if it appears that way I apologize, I know many excellent private pilots who fly jets. But having someone for example to fly a complex aircraft like a gulfstream with no experience other then a few circuits I don't agree with. Would it not make sense to at the very least put these guys through a ground school so they can learn the systems on the plane and do some basic training so they can handle the plane in an emergency? Appologies to nomorecatering for getting off topic.

[Keg]

In fact there was one owner of a C550 who was a private pilot and who flew the aircraft better than some of professional crew we employed.

Awesome. How about the bloke who's exposure to the jet is three circuits and now flying the approach? That's the point auto throttle is making.

[601]

From my recollection the only light jet to ever fatally crash in Australia was a C500 around the Atherton Tablelands. The pilot was a very experience commercial pilot who "knew it all".

From my recollection, a single pilot operation.

I shall refresh your memory;
C500 Proserpine QLD - two crew.

Also close to home;
C550 Bwagaoia Aerodrome, Misima Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea - two crew.

Initially C500/550 were all two crew aircraft. Cessna, through Flight Safety in Wichita, included training for two pilots in the cost of the aircraft. The co-pilot training was the same as the command training.

[PLovett]

FFS no one is talking of letting the 3 circuit guy loose in the bloody thing on his own. He is in the RHS with a fully qualified driver in the left. :mad:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Quote:
From my recollection the only light jet to ever fatally crash in Australia was a C500 around the Atherton Tablelands. The pilot was a very experience commercial pilot who "knew it all".
From my recollection, a single pilot operation.

I shall refresh your memory;
C500 Proserpine QLD - two crew.

Also close to home;
C550 Bwagaoia Aerodrome, Misima Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea - two crew.Wasn't there a Lear that went in at Alice Springs? Messed up the twin NBD Appr if my memory serves me correctly.

Westwind off Sydney?

Oh yeah - and a Westwind at Norfolk Is (Norfolk I is part of Oz now!)

Dr :8

[601]

I was only posting about light jets that could be crewed single pilot.

Certainly there have been more accidents in "heaver" business jets. The OP was asking about C500/Beechjet size aircraft.

I believe the one at Alice was a Westwind VH-AJS.

[topdrop]

There was a single pilot Citation that force landed East of Kalgoorlie early 80's - ran out of fuel - fortunately only minor injury to pilot.

[das Uber Soldat]

Alot of garbage in this thread.

Where is the evidence. The Americans allow this type of operation. What is the accident rate of this type of setup vs that of one requiring both crew of this category of aircraft to hold a full endorsement etc.

The numbers will tell the story, not half baked assumptions and assertions.

[LeadSled]

We are going to run out of pages if I listed the accidents.

Auto Throttle,
Just for our benefit, just list, say, five (5) VH- accidents involving light jets on private operations. That will not take too much time, surely??
Tootle pip!!

[nomorecatering]

Thank you all for your input but basically this thread has been a waste of time.

15 years ago when I was a junior instructor, I didn't know much about the ways of the world or this industry, but there was PPrune to get sound advice from people who knew their trade, the masters handing down words of wisdom to the apprentice.

But that is no more. PPrune has become the Zoo magazine of aviation. Pages of gossip, slander and trash talk, with little nutritional value. The masters have all gone. Now i am visiting PPrune about twice a month if that.

It's a damn shame.

[Stationair8]

Didn't Bib Stillwell operate his Learjet 23 single-pilot out of YMMB?

[megle2]

No-more, now that you mention it, yes there seems to be quite a few missing and decent comment is increasingly limited ( not that I contribute much )

[Tinstaafl]

I think some commentators should check what 14CFR Pt 61 actually requires:

§61.55 Second-in-command qualifications.

(a) A person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds:

(1) At least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating; and

(2) An instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under IFR; and

(3) At least a pilot type rating for the aircraft being flown unless the flight will be conducted as domestic flight operations within the United States airspace.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a second-in-command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second-in-command unless that person has within the previous 12 calendar months:

(1) Become familiar with the following information for the specific type aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested—

(i) Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

(ii) Performance specifications and limitations.

(iii) Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

(iv) Flight manual.

(v) Placards and markings.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft for which second-in-command privileges are requested, which includes—

(i) Three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;

(ii) Engine-out procedures and maneuvering with an engine out while executing the duties of pilot in command; and

(iii) Crew resource management training.

(c) If a person complies with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the month in which compliance with this section is required, then that person is considered to have accomplished the training and practice in the month it is due.

(d) A person may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating (NOTE: The next few para are mostly admin/authorisation bumph about obligations for the trainer. Ed) for an aircraft after satisfactorily completing the second-in-command familiarization training requirements under paragraph (b) of this section in that type of aircraft provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating. The person must comply with the following application and pilot certification procedures:

(1) The person who provided the training must sign the applicant's logbook or training record after each lesson in accordance with §61.51(h)(2) of this part. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's training records or logbook and make the required endorsement. The qualified management official must hold the position of Chief Pilot, Director of Training, Director of Operations, or another comparable management position within the organization that provided the training and must be in a position to verify the applicant's training records and that the training was given.

(2) The trainer or qualified management official must make an endorsement in the applicant's logbook that states “[Applicant's Name and Pilot Certificate Number] has demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the [Type of Aircraft], relevant to the duties and responsibilities of a second in command.”

(3) If the applicant's flight experience and/or training records are in an electronic form, the applicant must present a paper copy of those records containing the signature of the trainer or qualified management official to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or Examiner.

(4) The applicant must complete and sign an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710-1, and present the application to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner.

(5) The person who provided the ground and flight training to the applicant must sign the “Instructor's Recommendation” section of the Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710-1. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's FAA Form 8710-1.

(6) The applicant must appear in person at a FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner with his or her logbook/training records and with the completed and signed FAA Form 8710-1.

(7) There is no practical test required for the issuance of the “SIC Privileges Only” pilot type rating.

(e) A person may receive a second-in-command pilot type rating for the type of aircraft (NOTE: The next few para are mostly admin/authorisation bumph similar to para d. above. Ed)[B] after satisfactorily completing an approved second-in-command training program, proficiency check, or competency check under subpart K of part 91, part 125, or part 135, as appropriate, in that type of aircraft provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating. The person must comply with the following application and pilot certification procedures:

(1) The person who provided the training must sign the applicant's logbook or training record after each lesson in accordance with §61.51(h)(2) of this part. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's training records or logbook and make the required endorsement. The qualified management official must hold the position of Chief Pilot, Director of Training, Director of Operations, or another comparable management position within the organization that provided the training and must be in a position to verify the applicant's training records and that the training was given.

(2) The trainer or qualified management official must make an endorsement in the applicant's logbook that states “[Applicant's Name and Pilot Certificate Number] has demonstrated the skill and knowledge required for the safe operation of the [Type of Aircraft], relevant to the duties and responsibilities of a second in command.”

(3) If the applicant's flight experience and/or training records are in an electronic form, the applicant must provide a paper copy of those records containing the signature of the trainer or qualified management official to an FAA Flight Standards District Office, an Examiner, or an Aircrew Program Designee.

(4) The applicant must complete and sign an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710-1, and present the application to an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner or to an authorized Aircrew Program Designee.

(5) The person who provided the ground and flight training to the applicant must sign the “Instructor's Recommendation” section of the Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, FAA Form 8710-1. In lieu of the trainer, it is permissible for a qualified management official within the organization to sign the applicant's FAA Form 8710-1.

(6) The applicant must appear in person at an FAA Flight Standards District Office or to an Examiner or to an authorized Aircrew Program Designee with his or her logbook/training records and with the completed and signed FAA Form 8710-1.

(7) There is no practical test required for the issuance of the “SIC Privileges Only” pilot type rating.

(f) The familiarization training requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to a person who is:

(1) Designated and qualified as pilot in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;

(2) Designated as the second in command under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of aircraft;

(3) Designated as the second in command in that specific type of aircraft for the purpose of receiving flight training required by this section, and no passengers or cargo are carried on the aircraft; or

(4) Designated as a safety pilot for purposes required by §91.109 of this chapter.

(g) The holder of a commercial or airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating is not required to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, provided the pilot:

(1) Is conducting a ferry flight, aircraft flight test, or evaluation flight of an aircraft's equipment; and

(2) Is not carrying any person or property on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.

(h) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, a person may serve as second in command in that specific type aircraft, provided:

(1) The flight is conducted under day VFR or day IFR; and

(2) No person or property is carried on board the aircraft, other than necessary for conduct of the flight.

(i) The training under paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section and the training, proficiency check, and competency check under paragraph (e) of this section may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is used in accordance with an approved training course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter or under subpart K of part 91, part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.

(j) When an applicant for an initial second-in-command qualification for a particular type of aircraft receives all the training in a flight simulator, that applicant must satisfactorily complete one takeoff and one landing in an aircraft of the same type for which the qualification is sought. This requirement does not apply to an applicant who completes a proficiency check under part 121 or competency check under subpart K, part 91, part 125, or part 135 for the particular type of aircraft.



Note: My bolding.