Comments to FAA 2007-0383

Bankair supports Ameriflight's Request for Exemption/Rulemaking for the
use of an SIC in a **[CARGO]{.underline}** aircraft when the SIC is not
required by regulation or operation being conducted, for the following
reasons:

-   In aircraft that do not otherwise require an FO, there is no
    incentive for an FO to be aboard if s/he cannot legally log the time
    -- and use it to qualify for a better job.  This specific issue is a
    major problem at the present time, because of nonuniform
    interpretations on this subject across the FAA and reluctance of
    some airlines to accept such time on resumes.    

-   There are clear safety benefits to having a properly trained,
    checked FO aboard an aircraft that could otherwise be operated
    single pilot.  While the market won't support a requirement for such
    FOs to be present at all times, whenever they *are* present, safety
    is improved.  This factor alone is a compelling argument in favor of
    allowing the FO to log the time. 

-   FOs gaining experience in day-to-day line flying operations help
    fill the pipeline with people who have useful, real-world, IFR,
    in-the-system experience when they reach the current FAR 135.243
    threshold for IFR PIC qualification.  This experience is much more
    useful than other common time-builders such as flight instruction,
    pipeline patrol, traffic watch flying, etc.  This is a truly
    significant factor in these days of increasingly slim supplies of
    pilots, and diminishing levels of proficiency. 

-   The need to have an FO aboard for a low minimum takeoff, extended
    crew flight/duty/rest situation, or to meet HazMat crew requirements
    is impossible to predict.  If the operator elects to put one there,
    but the FO is prohibited from logging the flight time as SIC except
    when actually engaged in the low-min takeoff (and how much do we log
    then?  A minute? Takeoffs happen quickly), long duty day, or HazMat
    flight, we have created a ludicrous, unsupportable situation.    

In addition to the above reasons -- this is not a new issue and there is
historical information. The use of an SIC in a cargo nine or less
aircraft was a proposed issued for the "now famous" ARC 125/135 rewrite
of 2003-2005. I proposed it myself, as below --

**6. Logging Second in Command time under 135 for aircraft not requiring
more than one pilot**.

61.51(f) states that SIC time may be logged ONLY in an aircraft
certificated for more than one pilot. 135 operators should be allowed
the safety benefit of using an SIC if desired. Recommend a change to
135.99 Composition of Flightcrew that allows --

A certificate holder may operate an aircraft certificated for only one
pilot with a second in command who is an employee of the certificate
holder and properly trained and qualified under 135.293.

135.109 Pilot in Command or Second in Command: Designation Required --
would have to be revised from designating a Second in Command for each
flight requiring two pilots to designating a Second in Command for each
flight being operated with two pilots.

The issue was transferred from the Operations Work Group to the Training
Work Group and it was lost in transfer. I cannot help but think that it
may have been lost because no one realized that you cannot put a
co-pilot or second in command in a FAR 135 cargo airplane unless the
aircraft requires two pilots by certification -- period!

Yes, it has to do with logging time, but it really is not a Part 61
issue. We are talking about commercial operations. If the airplane was
carrying passengers, you can put an SIC in any airplane and s/he can log
time. If the airplane is carrying cargo, you cannot put an SIC in unless
the airplane is type certificated for two pilots.

I am still committed to this issue and see the logging time quandary as
having a solution in commercial operations under FAR 135. Added safety
is only a by-product. Operating Experience is the primary benefit.

On at least two occasions, maybe three, I have asked my POI to approve
an SIC Training Program (as a module/element of my Training Program) for
use in cargo operations in aircraft requiring only one pilot. The issue
has been elevated to my Region and the answer has consistently been NO.
They cannot approve an SIC Training Program module for use in aircraft
type certificated for only one pilot when used in 135 cargo operations.

It has been suggested that you can put anyone in the right seat of a
single pilot cargo aircraft.

Ameriflight is requesting the option of putting an employee of the
certificate holder, fully trained and qualified as a crewmember who will
abide by time and duty regulations and log the time in a cargo single
pilot aircraft. This would not be required on every flight, but is an
option available to Ameriflight if the stars line up just right and they
have a second pilot and want to put them in the aircraft for any reason,
including a whim. I support that request.

Jeanne Cook

Chief Pilot

Bankair