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.