Narrative:

I participated as a flight operations engineer, MD88 senior fleet specialist on board a part 121 air carrier's MD88 aircraft being operated in a maintenance/experimental status under far part 91.319. The aircraft hydraulics system was being evaluated. The crew consisted of myself, 2 of the airline's flight instructors current in the aircraft acting as pilot and copilot, 6 other flight test engineers and 1 maintenance qa representative, no passenger or cargo were on board. I have a private pilot certificate, single engine land, and am currently pursuing my multi-engine rating. As MD88 senior fleet specialist for this airline I am responsible for writing normal and abnormal flight crew operating procedures. In addition, I am familiar with the aircraft's powerplants, major components and system, performance and limitations, and the contents of the approved airplane flight manual. I have completed the airline's MD88 pilot ground training school and routinely use the full flight simulators to evaluate procedures. I have extensive flight experience in these simulators in all phases of flight. After successful completion of the in-flight evaluation of the hydraulic system, we performed a full stop landing at cae. I was then asked by the captain flight instructor if I would like to occupy the copilot seat for the takeoff and subsequent landing in cae, which I did. Day, VMC conditions existed with light winds straight down the runway. With the flight instructor jointly at the controls, an uneventful takeoff, visual traffic pattern and landing were performed while I occupied the right seat. At no time was I sole manipulator of the controls. The next day, however, these actions were questioned by one of the other crew members who felt that the flight was being operated under part 121, which it was not as explained above, and that we were in violation. After further reviewing far parts 61 and 91, I have found some ambiguities. First, does the remainder of part 91, with regard to the requirement of having a pilot as sic, apply to this aircraft and flight since the aircraft had an experimental type certificate? If so, did the sic, in this case the second flight instructor, relinquish his sic authority/authorized and duties to me when I occupied the right seat of the aircraft? If I was indeed sic, in accordance with far 61.117, I am legal to do so. It clearly states that a person with a private pilot certificate may act as sic as long as the flight is not operated for compensation or hire, which it was not. However, part 61.55 confuses the issue on how one is designated as sic and the requirements of sic. I interpreted my action of occupying the right seat to be no different than receiving flight training for a multi-engine class rating from a qualified flight instructor in the aircraft. I recommend additional clarification to the FARS to specifically address the designation and requirements of sic and what limitations, if any, are on the individual occupying a seat when a flight instructor is at the other set of controls should the aircraft require 2 pilots. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that she was an airline company aircraft engineer and was trained in the MD88 aircraft system and simulator operating experience but did not hold a multi-engine rating. It was explained that this would be required when occupying the first officer's seat when on an experimental maintenance test flight. Callback conversation with reporter on acn 392338, air carrier instructor, revealed the following information: reporter stated that he believed that the first officer was qualified, but now knows differently after review of the appropriate regulations. He further stated that one of the persons switching just prior to flight with another essential test engineer person turned in this discrepancy to the airline company which subsequently notified the FAA. FAA responded to the company with a letter recognizing the violation and the fact that the airline company had already taken remedial action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN ACR MD88 ON A MAINT TEST FLT ASSIGNED A SO FOR A TKOF AND LNDG IN THE TFC PATTERN WHEN THE PERSON ASSIGNED WAS NOT QUALIFIED PER SECTION 61 PT 55(A)(1) OF THE FAR. NO MULTI-ENG RATING.

Narrative: I PARTICIPATED AS A FLT OPS ENGINEER, MD88 SENIOR FLEET SPECIALIST ON BOARD A PART 121 ACR'S MD88 ACFT BEING OPERATED IN A MAINT/EXPERIMENTAL STATUS UNDER FAR PART 91.319. THE ACFT HYDS SYS WAS BEING EVALUATED. THE CREW CONSISTED OF MYSELF, 2 OF THE AIRLINE'S FLT INSTRUCTORS CURRENT IN THE ACFT ACTING AS PLT AND COPLT, 6 OTHER FLT TEST ENGINEERS AND 1 MAINT QA REPRESENTATIVE, NO PAX OR CARGO WERE ON BOARD. I HAVE A PVT PLT CERTIFICATE, SINGLE ENG LAND, AND AM CURRENTLY PURSUING MY MULTI-ENG RATING. AS MD88 SENIOR FLEET SPECIALIST FOR THIS AIRLINE I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WRITING NORMAL AND ABNORMAL FLC OPERATING PROCS. IN ADDITION, I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE ACFT'S POWERPLANTS, MAJOR COMPONENTS AND SYS, PERFORMANCE AND LIMITATIONS, AND THE CONTENTS OF THE APPROVED AIRPLANE FLT MANUAL. I HAVE COMPLETED THE AIRLINE'S MD88 PLT GND TRAINING SCHOOL AND ROUTINELY USE THE FULL FLT SIMULATORS TO EVALUATE PROCS. I HAVE EXTENSIVE FLT EXPERIENCE IN THESE SIMULATORS IN ALL PHASES OF FLT. AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE INFLT EVALUATION OF THE HYD SYS, WE PERFORMED A FULL STOP LNDG AT CAE. I WAS THEN ASKED BY THE CAPT FLT INSTRUCTOR IF I WOULD LIKE TO OCCUPY THE COPLT SEAT FOR THE TKOF AND SUBSEQUENT LNDG IN CAE, WHICH I DID. DAY, VMC CONDITIONS EXISTED WITH LIGHT WINDS STRAIGHT DOWN THE RWY. WITH THE FLT INSTRUCTOR JOINTLY AT THE CTLS, AN UNEVENTFUL TKOF, VISUAL TFC PATTERN AND LNDG WERE PERFORMED WHILE I OCCUPIED THE R SEAT. AT NO TIME WAS I SOLE MANIPULATOR OF THE CTLS. THE NEXT DAY, HOWEVER, THESE ACTIONS WERE QUESTIONED BY ONE OF THE OTHER CREW MEMBERS WHO FELT THAT THE FLT WAS BEING OPERATED UNDER PART 121, WHICH IT WAS NOT AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, AND THAT WE WERE IN VIOLATION. AFTER FURTHER REVIEWING FAR PARTS 61 AND 91, I HAVE FOUND SOME AMBIGUITIES. FIRST, DOES THE REMAINDER OF PART 91, WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A PLT AS SIC, APPLY TO THIS ACFT AND FLT SINCE THE ACFT HAD AN EXPERIMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATE? IF SO, DID THE SIC, IN THIS CASE THE SECOND FLT INSTRUCTOR, RELINQUISH HIS SIC AUTH AND DUTIES TO ME WHEN I OCCUPIED THE R SEAT OF THE ACFT? IF I WAS INDEED SIC, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 61.117, I AM LEGAL TO DO SO. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT A PERSON WITH A PVT PLT CERTIFICATE MAY ACT AS SIC AS LONG AS THE FLT IS NOT OPERATED FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE, WHICH IT WAS NOT. HOWEVER, PART 61.55 CONFUSES THE ISSUE ON HOW ONE IS DESIGNATED AS SIC AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF SIC. I INTERPRETED MY ACTION OF OCCUPYING THE R SEAT TO BE NO DIFFERENT THAN RECEIVING FLT TRAINING FOR A MULTI-ENG CLASS RATING FROM A QUALIFIED FLT INSTRUCTOR IN THE ACFT. I RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION TO THE FARS TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE DESIGNATION AND REQUIREMENTS OF SIC AND WHAT LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, ARE ON THE INDIVIDUAL OCCUPYING A SEAT WHEN A FLT INSTRUCTOR IS AT THE OTHER SET OF CTLS SHOULD THE ACFT REQUIRE 2 PLTS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT SHE WAS AN AIRLINE COMPANY ACFT ENGINEER AND WAS TRAINED IN THE MD88 ACFT SYS AND SIMULATOR OPERATING EXPERIENCE BUT DID NOT HOLD A MULTI-ENG RATING. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS WOULD BE REQUIRED WHEN OCCUPYING THE FO'S SEAT WHEN ON AN EXPERIMENTAL MAINT TEST FLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ON ACN 392338, ACR INSTRUCTOR, REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE FO WAS QUALIFIED, BUT NOW KNOWS DIFFERENTLY AFTER REVIEW OF THE APPROPRIATE REGS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ONE OF THE PERSONS SWITCHING JUST PRIOR TO FLT WITH ANOTHER ESSENTIAL TEST ENGINEER PERSON TURNED IN THIS DISCREPANCY TO THE AIRLINE COMPANY WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY NOTIFIED THE FAA. FAA RESPONDED TO THE COMPANY WITH A LETTER RECOGNIZING THE VIOLATION AND THE FACT THAT THE AIRLINE COMPANY HAD ALREADY TAKEN REMEDIAL ACTION.

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.