Narrative:

I was hired as a contract pilot by a major, GA aircraft manufacturer to fly with a buyer of 1 of their aircraft. The contract was to be for 30 days, with a possible 30 day extension. The manufacturer's demonstration pilot flew the first leg into ilg with the owner/pilot, the aircraft transferred ownership, and the owner/pilot and myself departed ilg. I had been told the owner had been to recurrent training within the past month on this type aircraft, and had been flying another jet for the last 2 yrs, (the one he traded in on this one). I was hired on the basis of his acting as PIC, and myself as sic, and to assist him with any questions he might have about this model. He was rated in type, but had owned a slightly different model 2 and 1/2 yrs before. During our first leg together the flight went as planned, except for a landing at tjsj completely on the left side of the runway. The demonstration pilot said to me earlier in the day that this pilot liked the left side of the runway, so I wasn't surprised. During this leg, the owner/pilot's usual copilot was riding the jumpseat, there to handle the radio, as necessary, (because we were going into some non- english speaking fields -- I was told). In my conversations with him, I began to doubt whether the owner/pilot was current as PIC. This was not a problem for me because I was current as PIC, to carry passenger in this type aircraft. Also on board during this leg was the aircraft salesman, who represented the buyer/pilot in the transaction. He is an a&P mechanic, and could be construed as necessary to the flight. I mention this part here because of my statement as to type of situation, ie, possible violation of far 61.55(6)(2II). When we departed, I thought the owner/pilot was PIC, I was sic, and we had 2 passenger on board. When I discovered after our arrival at the destination the next day that the 'PIC' was not even qualified as sic, the 2 passenger immediately were transformed into persons 'necessary for the operation' per 61.55. This first leg was conducted day, IFR. The simple solution to this problem of currency is to have a copy of the other pilot's license, most recent medical, and most recent training record or ppe signoff. In the future, that is what I will do. I ended up flying 5 more legs with this owner/pilot. You will see 5 more ASRS reports following this one. It gets serious during the last 2 legs, illustrating the importance of all parties agreeing to command authority/authorized before getting into the aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PIC WAS MISLED REGARDING AN ACTING SIC'S QUALIFICATIONS, AND, AS A RESULT, THE CORPORATE JET WAS OPERATED WITH AN UNQUALIFIED CREWMEMBER.

Narrative: I WAS HIRED AS A CONTRACT PLT BY A MAJOR, GA ACFT MANUFACTURER TO FLY WITH A BUYER OF 1 OF THEIR ACFT. THE CONTRACT WAS TO BE FOR 30 DAYS, WITH A POSSIBLE 30 DAY EXTENSION. THE MANUFACTURER'S DEMO PLT FLEW THE FIRST LEG INTO ILG WITH THE OWNER/PLT, THE ACFT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP, AND THE OWNER/PLT AND MYSELF DEPARTED ILG. I HAD BEEN TOLD THE OWNER HAD BEEN TO RECURRENT TRAINING WITHIN THE PAST MONTH ON THIS TYPE ACFT, AND HAD BEEN FLYING ANOTHER JET FOR THE LAST 2 YRS, (THE ONE HE TRADED IN ON THIS ONE). I WAS HIRED ON THE BASIS OF HIS ACTING AS PIC, AND MYSELF AS SIC, AND TO ASSIST HIM WITH ANY QUESTIONS HE MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THIS MODEL. HE WAS RATED IN TYPE, BUT HAD OWNED A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MODEL 2 AND 1/2 YRS BEFORE. DURING OUR FIRST LEG TOGETHER THE FLT WENT AS PLANNED, EXCEPT FOR A LNDG AT TJSJ COMPLETELY ON THE L SIDE OF THE RWY. THE DEMO PLT SAID TO ME EARLIER IN THE DAY THAT THIS PLT LIKED THE L SIDE OF THE RWY, SO I WASN'T SURPRISED. DURING THIS LEG, THE OWNER/PLT'S USUAL COPLT WAS RIDING THE JUMPSEAT, THERE TO HANDLE THE RADIO, AS NECESSARY, (BECAUSE WE WERE GOING INTO SOME NON- ENGLISH SPEAKING FIELDS -- I WAS TOLD). IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, I BEGAN TO DOUBT WHETHER THE OWNER/PLT WAS CURRENT AS PIC. THIS WAS NOT A PROB FOR ME BECAUSE I WAS CURRENT AS PIC, TO CARRY PAX IN THIS TYPE ACFT. ALSO ON BOARD DURING THIS LEG WAS THE ACFT SALESMAN, WHO REPRESENTED THE BUYER/PLT IN THE TRANSACTION. HE IS AN A&P MECH, AND COULD BE CONSTRUED AS NECESSARY TO THE FLT. I MENTION THIS PART HERE BECAUSE OF MY STATEMENT AS TO TYPE OF SIT, IE, POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF FAR 61.55(6)(2II). WHEN WE DEPARTED, I THOUGHT THE OWNER/PLT WAS PIC, I WAS SIC, AND WE HAD 2 PAX ON BOARD. WHEN I DISCOVERED AFTER OUR ARR AT THE DEST THE NEXT DAY THAT THE 'PIC' WAS NOT EVEN QUALIFIED AS SIC, THE 2 PAX IMMEDIATELY WERE TRANSFORMED INTO PERSONS 'NECESSARY FOR THE OP' PER 61.55. THIS FIRST LEG WAS CONDUCTED DAY, IFR. THE SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROB OF CURRENCY IS TO HAVE A COPY OF THE OTHER PLT'S LICENSE, MOST RECENT MEDICAL, AND MOST RECENT TRAINING RECORD OR PPE SIGNOFF. IN THE FUTURE, THAT IS WHAT I WILL DO. I ENDED UP FLYING 5 MORE LEGS WITH THIS OWNER/PLT. YOU WILL SEE 5 MORE ASRS RPTS FOLLOWING THIS ONE. IT GETS SERIOUS DURING THE LAST 2 LEGS, ILLUSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF ALL PARTIES AGREEING TO COMMAND AUTH BEFORE GETTING INTO THE ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.