37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 444679 |
Time | |
Date | 199907 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : bna.airport |
State Reference | TN |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | general aviation : corporate |
Make Model Name | Citation V |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | ground : parked ground other : post flight |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : corporate |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : private |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 73 flight time total : 1124 flight time type : 176 |
ASRS Report | 444679 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : corporate |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : far non adherence other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
Consequence | other |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Company |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
I hold a private pilot certificate with instrument and multi-engine ratings. Our company operates 2 citation V ultras for internal business purposes under part 91. I did the ground school and 3 takeoffs and lndgs necessary to log time as sic in the citations. As a result, I have been logging sic time for almost 2 yrs on most trips where I'm traveling on business. About 3 weeks ago, our chief pilot was told by our insurance carrier that, while it was not a problem for them, there had been past cases where the FAA had undertaken enforcement actions against private pilots flying as crew man on company planes, even though plting was not part of their job duties (ie, their flying of the company plane was incidental to their jobs). At that time, I asked our company's general counsel to refer this issue to an aviation attorney for an opinion. On jul/xa/99, I received a facsimile opinion from this lawyer stating the FAA had indeed taken a very broad interpretation on the issue of private pilot executives flying as crew on company airplanes and there was a real possibility of a successful enforcement action against me should this come to their attention. Based upon this legal opinion, I have notified in writing our chief pilot that I will no longer serve as sic on any company aircraft unless and until I qualify for a commercial rating. While I think it would be an incredible overreach for the FAA to allege any of my compensation as an employee of the company is related to flying duties, I am unwilling to assume that risk. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that there had been no official contact with the FAA regarding his qualifications, only that which his company lawyers had indicated. However, he was not aware of all the stipulated training requirements specified in section 61.55(B) of the FARS. Therefore, he acknowledged that he had not completed those items within the last 12 months.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC MEMBER OF A CESSNA CITATION 5, ACTED AS SIC WHEN HE DID NOT MEET THE TRAINING AND PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS.
Narrative: I HOLD A PVT PLT CERTIFICATE WITH INST AND MULTI-ENG RATINGS. OUR COMPANY OPERATES 2 CITATION V ULTRAS FOR INTERNAL BUSINESS PURPOSES UNDER PART 91. I DID THE GND SCHOOL AND 3 TKOFS AND LNDGS NECESSARY TO LOG TIME AS SIC IN THE CITATIONS. AS A RESULT, I HAVE BEEN LOGGING SIC TIME FOR ALMOST 2 YRS ON MOST TRIPS WHERE I'M TRAVELING ON BUSINESS. ABOUT 3 WKS AGO, OUR CHIEF PLT WAS TOLD BY OUR INSURANCE CARRIER THAT, WHILE IT WAS NOT A PROB FOR THEM, THERE HAD BEEN PAST CASES WHERE THE FAA HAD UNDERTAKEN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST PVT PLTS FLYING AS CREW MAN ON COMPANY PLANES, EVEN THOUGH PLTING WAS NOT PART OF THEIR JOB DUTIES (IE, THEIR FLYING OF THE COMPANY PLANE WAS INCIDENTAL TO THEIR JOBS). AT THAT TIME, I ASKED OUR COMPANY'S GENERAL COUNSEL TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO AN AVIATION ATTORNEY FOR AN OPINION. ON JUL/XA/99, I RECEIVED A FAX OPINION FROM THIS LAWYER STATING THE FAA HAD INDEED TAKEN A VERY BROAD INTERP ON THE ISSUE OF PVT PLT EXECUTIVES FLYING AS CREW ON COMPANY AIRPLANES AND THERE WAS A REAL POSSIBILITY OF A SUCCESSFUL ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ME SHOULD THIS COME TO THEIR ATTN. BASED UPON THIS LEGAL OPINION, I HAVE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OUR CHIEF PLT THAT I WILL NO LONGER SERVE AS SIC ON ANY COMPANY ACFT UNLESS AND UNTIL I QUALIFY FOR A COMMERCIAL RATING. WHILE I THINK IT WOULD BE AN INCREDIBLE OVERREACH FOR THE FAA TO ALLEGE ANY OF MY COMPENSATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY IS RELATED TO FLYING DUTIES, I AM UNWILLING TO ASSUME THAT RISK. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO OFFICIAL CONTACT WITH THE FAA REGARDING HIS QUALIFICATIONS, ONLY THAT WHICH HIS COMPANY LAWYERS HAD INDICATED. HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT AWARE OF ALL THE STIPULATED TRAINING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 61.55(B) OF THE FARS. THEREFORE, HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE HAD NOT COMPLETED THOSE ITEMS WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.
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.