Multi Crew in Single Pilot Helicopters...
If its an S-76 as you mention, if a pilot is S-76 rated and occupies the LHS, why wouldn't he be able to log P2 time? S-76s have been flown 2 crew under VFR for 30 years.
Shytorque
I think that's a bit over the going rate
let me know where this naive millionaire is
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Gordy
That's a whole heap of S-76 Co-Pilot hours flown on the North Sea by some people invalid then. I think that the regulations are obviously different in the USA where you don't need a type rating.
So, how does a co pilot flying an S-76 or a Bell 412 in the GOM, not under instruction log their flight hours and duty time. If you can't log the flight hours, then there must be no duty time? Sounds like I may have found a way to reduce my contract costs, require 2 pilots, only pay for the one that counts.
That's a whole heap of S-76 Co-Pilot hours flown on the North Sea by some people invalid then. I think that the regulations are obviously different in the USA where you don't need a type rating.
So, how does a co pilot flying an S-76 or a Bell 412 in the GOM, not under instruction log their flight hours and duty time. If you can't log the flight hours, then there must be no duty time? Sounds like I may have found a way to reduce my contract costs, require 2 pilots, only pay for the one that counts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It all comes down to HOW the helicopter is listed.
A helicopter-independent of itīs type or weight-can be listed as a "multi pilot helicopter" or "single pilot helicopter"-for all, or only for a few operations (e.g. "VFR: 1 pilot, IFR: 2 pilots).
This needs to be written either in the OM or the FM, and needs to be approved by the authorities.
Once this is done, there is no way an additional pilot can log P2 (in an approved SPH-unless under instruction, but then NOT in commercial air transport), or that a helicopter can be flown with one pilot (if approved as MPH).
A helicopter-independent of itīs type or weight-can be listed as a "multi pilot helicopter" or "single pilot helicopter"-for all, or only for a few operations (e.g. "VFR: 1 pilot, IFR: 2 pilots).
This needs to be written either in the OM or the FM, and needs to be approved by the authorities.
Once this is done, there is no way an additional pilot can log P2 (in an approved SPH-unless under instruction, but then NOT in commercial air transport), or that a helicopter can be flown with one pilot (if approved as MPH).
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm surprised at the opposition to the potential safety benefits of operating 2 crew in helicopters onshore, especially if both pilots are current and type rated. It needs to be performed correctly - a clear division of roles for PF and PNF, but in my view it enhances safety and increases pilots available capacity. PNF looks after radios, navigation, plates, frequencies, most 'eyes in' functions, emergency checklists and provide an extra set of eyes and ears, leaving PF to maintain a good lookout and fly aircraft with max spare capacity. Surely a good thing, especially when in more challenging conditions like deteriorating weather, inadvertent IMC, busy airspace, low level or areas of high traffic density.
Additionally, for the career development of pilots (of which there is limited 2nd pilot work onshore) it is a valuable way for pilots to become familiar with new aircraft types & operating procedures under the supervision of a more experienced captain whilst still being able to help with tasks that they are very comfortable and familiar with. Of course they cannot log the time unless Multi-crew requirements have been met but if roles are specified, briefed and legal, I believe 2nd pilots can be very valuable especially when workloads increase.
Additionally, for the career development of pilots (of which there is limited 2nd pilot work onshore) it is a valuable way for pilots to become familiar with new aircraft types & operating procedures under the supervision of a more experienced captain whilst still being able to help with tasks that they are very comfortable and familiar with. Of course they cannot log the time unless Multi-crew requirements have been met but if roles are specified, briefed and legal, I believe 2nd pilots can be very valuable especially when workloads increase.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Aucky, in the offshore environment where I work, we would never accept Single Pilot, or Single Engine or old generation helicopters. There is nothing wrong with Co-Pilot time.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying single pilot requires a very specific skill set. Some might say over time it also can develop a certain style or attitude!
Flying true twin pilot requires additional skills, some of which can be difficult to acquire and not necessarily intuitive for some. That is why there is a requirement for a Multi Crew Course for those who's futures lie in that direction.
Shy's link nicely covers the concept of a 'Pilot's Assistant' who whilst somehow 'qualified' is most definitely NOT a second pilot in the sense in which some may like to interpret it. I believe they can't log P1 or P2 hours?
Which brings me to chopjock:
WTF is a "non type rated" "safety pilot" and what's safe about it?
Does some such thing exist within the legislation? Or is this simply a way for a PPL (director of the supplier) to justify his 'ride along' presence to a cameraman customer who knows no better?
It all comes down to precise definitions, but a PPL might not even qualify to be a 'Pilot's Assistant' on a 'Hire and Reward' flight? I don't know.
This is where lines get blurred.
Flying true twin pilot requires additional skills, some of which can be difficult to acquire and not necessarily intuitive for some. That is why there is a requirement for a Multi Crew Course for those who's futures lie in that direction.
Shy's link nicely covers the concept of a 'Pilot's Assistant' who whilst somehow 'qualified' is most definitely NOT a second pilot in the sense in which some may like to interpret it. I believe they can't log P1 or P2 hours?
Which brings me to chopjock:
a non type rated safety pilot along for the ride
Does some such thing exist within the legislation? Or is this simply a way for a PPL (director of the supplier) to justify his 'ride along' presence to a cameraman customer who knows no better?
It all comes down to precise definitions, but a PPL might not even qualify to be a 'Pilot's Assistant' on a 'Hire and Reward' flight? I don't know.
This is where lines get blurred.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 7th Jan 2014 at 10:09.
So, how does a co pilot flying an S-76 or a Bell 412 in the GOM, not under instruction log their flight hours and duty time
That is different issue.
It's generally better to have a second set of eyes in the cockpit to look for traffic during VFR flight. But a two-pilot crew in a single-pilot helicopter is not *always* safer, nor is it *always* less workload for the PIC.
As long as both pilots are equally rated and there is a clear definition of who is PIC then yeah, go for it if you want. But there are other cases when it's not beneficial.
My boss used to charter (or "borrow") single-pilot fixed-wing aircraft for which I was not rated. He would insist that I go along on these flights "...as copilot" because while he was happy to fly in his single-engine helicopter with just me, he would not fly in a fixed-wing without two (turbine) engines and two pilots. So I'd go along and pretend to be a copilot. I've flown as "copilot" in Piper Cheyennes and multiple Beechcraft 200's (and even a 350), and various Cessna Citations. All of the PIC's were people I'd never flown with before.
Lots of times the PIC would ask me if I wanted to do something...handle the radios or whatever. I usually said, "Nope! I'm just going to sit here and look for traffic." When you take a guy who's been flying primarily as a single-pilot and then give him an unfamiliar copilot, you are *not* enhancing safety. Because now the PIC has to monitor everything that the "SIC" does to make sure he did it right. It actually increases his workload - which does not increase safety. It actually has the opposite effect.
I've flown as PIC with other similarly-rated pilots in small aircraft. They usually always want to participate in flying the aircraft - take away some of *my* duties as PIC. I usually deny the request. I say, "When you're flying, *YOU* do it all. When I'm flying, *I'LL* do it all." And then I'll let them do as much of the flying as they want. It's not that I'm a tw@t. Nobody needs a copilot in a small, single-pilot aircraft. Hey, you want to sit there and look for traffic, fine. But don't expect me to sit here with you "handling the radios" while you miss a call from ATC because you're gabbing away trying to impress me with how much flight time you have.
Yes, that's happened more than once. I say, "Uhhh, I think that was for us." They didn't catch the call because they're usually not familiar enough with the N-number to hear it over their own voice. So much for reducing my workload by letting someone else handle the radios, eh?
Throwing a "lone-wolf" single-pilot into a two-crew situation can be a recipe for disaster. I would advise pilots to be very, very cautious about who they let become a "copilot."
As long as both pilots are equally rated and there is a clear definition of who is PIC then yeah, go for it if you want. But there are other cases when it's not beneficial.
My boss used to charter (or "borrow") single-pilot fixed-wing aircraft for which I was not rated. He would insist that I go along on these flights "...as copilot" because while he was happy to fly in his single-engine helicopter with just me, he would not fly in a fixed-wing without two (turbine) engines and two pilots. So I'd go along and pretend to be a copilot. I've flown as "copilot" in Piper Cheyennes and multiple Beechcraft 200's (and even a 350), and various Cessna Citations. All of the PIC's were people I'd never flown with before.
Lots of times the PIC would ask me if I wanted to do something...handle the radios or whatever. I usually said, "Nope! I'm just going to sit here and look for traffic." When you take a guy who's been flying primarily as a single-pilot and then give him an unfamiliar copilot, you are *not* enhancing safety. Because now the PIC has to monitor everything that the "SIC" does to make sure he did it right. It actually increases his workload - which does not increase safety. It actually has the opposite effect.
I've flown as PIC with other similarly-rated pilots in small aircraft. They usually always want to participate in flying the aircraft - take away some of *my* duties as PIC. I usually deny the request. I say, "When you're flying, *YOU* do it all. When I'm flying, *I'LL* do it all." And then I'll let them do as much of the flying as they want. It's not that I'm a tw@t. Nobody needs a copilot in a small, single-pilot aircraft. Hey, you want to sit there and look for traffic, fine. But don't expect me to sit here with you "handling the radios" while you miss a call from ATC because you're gabbing away trying to impress me with how much flight time you have.
Yes, that's happened more than once. I say, "Uhhh, I think that was for us." They didn't catch the call because they're usually not familiar enough with the N-number to hear it over their own voice. So much for reducing my workload by letting someone else handle the radios, eh?
Throwing a "lone-wolf" single-pilot into a two-crew situation can be a recipe for disaster. I would advise pilots to be very, very cautious about who they let become a "copilot."
I think that the regulations are obviously different in the USA where you don't need a type rating.
(f) Logging second-in-command time. A person may log second-in-command flight time only for that flight time during which that person:
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of Sec. 61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of Sec. 61.55 of this part, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate; or
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
When you take a guy who's been flying primarily as a single-pilot and then give him an unfamiliar copilot, you are *not* enhancing safety.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
Gordy, I just re-read your post. I originally saw a Ģ sign where in fact you wrote $.
I take back what I said about that being over the odds. Bearing in mind company overheads taken out, it's very possible for the individual to earn that here too, or in fact a bit more.
I take back what I said about that being over the odds. Bearing in mind company overheads taken out, it's very possible for the individual to earn that here too, or in fact a bit more.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 57
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once this is done, there is no way an additional pilot can log P2 (in an approved SPH-unless under instruction, but then NOT in commercial air transport), or that a helicopter can be flown with one pilot (if approved as MPH).[/QUOTE]
This is not totaly correct. Every operator can define minimum crew requirements for his AOC. Lot's of single pilot helicopters are operated multi-crew offshore. Downside is, the crew needs to be rated MPO.
This is not totaly correct. Every operator can define minimum crew requirements for his AOC. Lot's of single pilot helicopters are operated multi-crew offshore. Downside is, the crew needs to be rated MPO.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 57
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi Crew in Single Pilot Helicopters...
Yes, sorry, if you refer to the Flight Operations Manual as OM you are correct.
There are different OMs published by the OEMs in regard to operations with optional equipment like hoist etc. and I thought you were refering to that.
Anyway, both pilots need to be rated MPO for multipilot operations and with PartFCL it is not that easy (cheap) to either convert from SPO to MPO, or to optain an additional MPO rating. Not impossible though and it depends largely on who your competent authority is.
There are different OMs published by the OEMs in regard to operations with optional equipment like hoist etc. and I thought you were refering to that.
Anyway, both pilots need to be rated MPO for multipilot operations and with PartFCL it is not that easy (cheap) to either convert from SPO to MPO, or to optain an additional MPO rating. Not impossible though and it depends largely on who your competent authority is.
