Narrative:

An air carrier of hired me in oct/96 as a mechanic with the promise of a pilot job after 6-12 months. At the time, I notified the chief pilot that I was multi rated but that there was a restr of 'multi engine land and SVFR only' on my certificate. There was some debate, of which I didn't partake in, as to whether this deficit would be a problem. Later that month, I had the opportunity to fly the company's light twin to get checked out to fly maintenance runs and to resolve the multi engine instrument lack on my ticket, so I thought. I flew the plane twice in oct/96 and did no further flying for the company for another 8 months. In jun/97 I began first officer training to fly shorts SD3's under part 135, as the company needed pilots. During my training, I mentioned my certificate restr to the instructor, who just started instructing. He told me he would check on it, but seemed to imply it wasn't an issue as a sic pilot. I missed reading far part 135.245, and no one brought it up when the ground school covered regulations. Researching the company's general operating procedures manual, it appears that this regulation on sic requirements was excluded. The subject was not addressed again until my part 135 chkride. Although the check airman asked to see my certificate and made a copy of it for the record, he obviously thought my status would pose no problems. On jul/xx/97 through nov/xx/97 I began flying the line with captain on a daily freight contract for air carrier from cho-iln and back. I had asked the captain on several occasions how I could log my instrument time, either 'actual' or 'simulated.' he contended it be logged as actual time, but I logged it as simulated IFR. Finally, in oct/97, I spoke to a pilot group representative, and he advised me to log the time as actual. A second opinion from an FAA flight inspector from dupage, il, also pointed to the logging of my IFR experience as actual. On nov/xx/97, an FAA inspector examined my certificate during a ramp check in cho and asked if I did not need certification in category and class for our operations. My response was, according to my company practice, it was ok as long as I was only performing duties as sic, as I understood them. A week later, my company received a letter from the FSDO in virginia via the milwaukee FSDO, mentioning fines for each flight I was present under IMC. Though I have not seen this letter, my company removed me from my flying duties on nov/yy/97. The last IFR flight I made was on nov/xy/97. In hindsight, I realize now that I should never take for granted an oversight made by any employer when it concerns operations in which I am involved. I must also personally verify that all operations comply with the FARS, especially in matters concerning certification. Finally, I learned that there is no excuse for not being totally cognizant of all the available information and resources pertaining to flight operations I am performing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FO OF A SHORTS SD330 WAS ASSIGNED AND OPERATED SEVERAL FLTS UNDER IMC CONDITIONS WHEN NOT QUALIFIED DUE TO A VFR ONLY RESTR ON HIS MULTI ENG RATING.

Narrative: AN ACR OF HIRED ME IN OCT/96 AS A MECH WITH THE PROMISE OF A PLT JOB AFTER 6-12 MONTHS. AT THE TIME, I NOTIFIED THE CHIEF PLT THAT I WAS MULTI RATED BUT THAT THERE WAS A RESTR OF 'MULTI ENG LAND AND SVFR ONLY' ON MY CERTIFICATE. THERE WAS SOME DEBATE, OF WHICH I DIDN'T PARTAKE IN, AS TO WHETHER THIS DEFICIT WOULD BE A PROB. LATER THAT MONTH, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FLY THE COMPANY'S LIGHT TWIN TO GET CHKED OUT TO FLY MAINT RUNS AND TO RESOLVE THE MULTI ENG INST LACK ON MY TICKET, SO I THOUGHT. I FLEW THE PLANE TWICE IN OCT/96 AND DID NO FURTHER FLYING FOR THE COMPANY FOR ANOTHER 8 MONTHS. IN JUN/97 I BEGAN FO TRAINING TO FLY SHORTS SD3'S UNDER PART 135, AS THE COMPANY NEEDED PLTS. DURING MY TRAINING, I MENTIONED MY CERTIFICATE RESTR TO THE INSTRUCTOR, WHO JUST STARTED INSTRUCTING. HE TOLD ME HE WOULD CHK ON IT, BUT SEEMED TO IMPLY IT WASN'T AN ISSUE AS A SIC PLT. I MISSED READING FAR PART 135.245, AND NO ONE BROUGHT IT UP WHEN THE GND SCHOOL COVERED REGS. RESEARCHING THE COMPANY'S GENERAL OPERATING PROCS MANUAL, IT APPEARS THAT THIS REG ON SIC REQUIREMENTS WAS EXCLUDED. THE SUBJECT WAS NOT ADDRESSED AGAIN UNTIL MY PART 135 CHKRIDE. ALTHOUGH THE CHK AIRMAN ASKED TO SEE MY CERTIFICATE AND MADE A COPY OF IT FOR THE RECORD, HE OBVIOUSLY THOUGHT MY STATUS WOULD POSE NO PROBS. ON JUL/XX/97 THROUGH NOV/XX/97 I BEGAN FLYING THE LINE WITH CAPT ON A DAILY FREIGHT CONTRACT FOR ACR FROM CHO-ILN AND BACK. I HAD ASKED THE CAPT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS HOW I COULD LOG MY INST TIME, EITHER 'ACTUAL' OR 'SIMULATED.' HE CONTENDED IT BE LOGGED AS ACTUAL TIME, BUT I LOGGED IT AS SIMULATED IFR. FINALLY, IN OCT/97, I SPOKE TO A PLT GROUP REPRESENTATIVE, AND HE ADVISED ME TO LOG THE TIME AS ACTUAL. A SECOND OPINION FROM AN FAA FLT INSPECTOR FROM DUPAGE, IL, ALSO POINTED TO THE LOGGING OF MY IFR EXPERIENCE AS ACTUAL. ON NOV/XX/97, AN FAA INSPECTOR EXAMINED MY CERTIFICATE DURING A RAMP CHK IN CHO AND ASKED IF I DID NOT NEED CERTIFICATION IN CATEGORY AND CLASS FOR OUR OPS. MY RESPONSE WAS, ACCORDING TO MY COMPANY PRACTICE, IT WAS OK AS LONG AS I WAS ONLY PERFORMING DUTIES AS SIC, AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM. A WK LATER, MY COMPANY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE FSDO IN VIRGINIA VIA THE MILWAUKEE FSDO, MENTIONING FINES FOR EACH FLT I WAS PRESENT UNDER IMC. THOUGH I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS LETTER, MY COMPANY REMOVED ME FROM MY FLYING DUTIES ON NOV/YY/97. THE LAST IFR FLT I MADE WAS ON NOV/XY/97. IN HINDSIGHT, I REALIZE NOW THAT I SHOULD NEVER TAKE FOR GRANTED AN OVERSIGHT MADE BY ANY EMPLOYER WHEN IT CONCERNS OPS IN WHICH I AM INVOLVED. I MUST ALSO PERSONALLY VERIFY THAT ALL OPS COMPLY WITH THE FARS, ESPECIALLY IN MATTERS CONCERNING CERTIFICATION. FINALLY, I LEARNED THAT THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING TOTALLY COGNIZANT OF ALL THE AVAILABLE INFO AND RESOURCES PERTAINING TO FLT OPS I AM PERFORMING.

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.