Regulatory and Policy Framework: Does a Training Plane Require a Second-in-Command?

In aviation, the concept of a second-in-command (SIC) is closely tied to crew composition, regulatory jurisdiction, and the intended operation of the aircraft. For flight training, the question often arises: must every training flight involve a dedicated SIC on board, or can a single instructor pilot fulfill the role? The answer depends on the regulatory environment, the type of operation, and the training objective. In many general aviation contexts, especially under Part 61 operations focused on pilot certification and personal flight training, a single instructor acting as pilot-in-command (PIC) can supervise student pilots in a single-pilot configuration. However, when the operation transitions to multi-crew aviation training, airline-type programs, or operations that require multiple flight deck roles, a second-qualified pilot in the cockpit becomes standard or legally mandated.

To ground this discussion, it helps to separate the regulatory layers. At the national level, regulator rules define who may act as PIC, what qualifications are required for instructors, and how flight training programs are authorized. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governs Part 61 flight training and Part 91 operations, along with provisions for Part 121 and Part 135 when airline- or charter-style training is involved. In Europe, EASA rules shape similar distinctions, with regional variations in the designation and responsibilities of PIC and SIC for training flights. Across jurisdictions, where dual-crew operations are required, the training aircraft and program must reflect those requirements in the operating specifications, training curricula, and maintenance provisions.

From a practical standpoint, the SIC concept in training is often a matter of risk management, not solely a regulatory checkbox. In solo-student training flights within a single-pilot framework, the instructor frequently serves as PIC from departure to landing, maintaining direct control over flight deck activities. When the student advances to instrument training, cross-country flights, or more advanced maneuvers, some programs introduce an additional qualified instructor or an additional pilot in the right seat to provide better crew-resource management, monitor performance, and ensure a robust safety net. The need for an SIC tends to rise with the complexity of the training scenario, the aircraft's certification basis (single-engine vs. multi-engine, high-performance models), and the level of risk associated with the operation.

What "Second-in-Command" Means in the Training Context

The SIC role in training is not a universal requirement; rather, it is a function that may be mandated or recommended based on the flight phase and regulatory category. Key dimensions include:

• Type of operation: VFR, IFR, cross-country, and night operations may trigger stronger CRM and crew coordination expectations.
• Aircraft configuration: Multi-engine or high-performance training aircraft often lead to two rated pilots in the cockpit during certain flight phases or training tasks.
• Regulatory category: Part 121/135 airline-type training almost always involves two pilots on board for most activities, while Part 61 general aviation training frequently does not require a dedicated SIC.
• Safety and risk management: In scenarios where workload may exceed a single PIC’s capacity (e.g., instrument approaches in IMC with a student, or dual-control maneuvers), an SIC or supervisor in the cockpit is prudent.

Practical takeaway: flight schools should align their staffing with regulatory requirements, the aircraft’s certification, and a documented safety-case for the training objectives. When in doubt, consult the applicable authority’s advisory circulars, course approvals, and field guidance to determine whether an SIC is mandated for a given program.

Regulatory Landscape: FAA, EASA, and Other Jurisdictions

Understanding jurisdictional nuances is essential for any training operation that intends to certify pilots for employment or transfer training across borders. The FAA distinguishes between PIC and SIC roles in Part 61 instructional flights and in the context of airline preparatory training under Part 121 or Part 135. FAA guidance emphasizes that an instructor may act as PIC in student training unless a specific flight may only be conducted by a crew of two due to the aircraft’s certification, the operation's certificate, or the training program design. In contrast, airline-type training programs frequently replicate two-pilot operations from the outset, with a properly qualified instructor occupying the SIC position as part of the standard risk-management framework. In Europe, EASA regulations similarly differentiate between single-pilot and multi-crew training requirements, with two-pilot operations common in type-rating courses and simulator-based training for line operations.

For cross-border programs, operators must ensure that aircraft, crew, and training materials satisfy both the home regulator and the destination regulator’s requirements. This can involve mutual recognition agreements, equivalence of ratings, and approved training syllabi. The regulatory burden reinforces a pragmatic conclusion: there is no universal mandate for an SIC in training planes; instead, there is a spectrum of requirements tied to the operation’s scope, certification, and safety case.

Practical Implications for Flight Schools and Training Operators

With a clear understanding of the regulatory framework, flight schools can design effective and safe training programs. Practical steps include:

• Map regulatory requirements to each training phase, noting where single-PIC flights are permissible and where dual-crew oversight is advisable or required.
• Define crew roles in standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each aircraft type and phase of flight, ensuring that PIC and SIC responsibilities are unambiguous.
• Incorporate CRM principles into the curriculum, emphasizing communication, workload distribution, and decision-making in multi-crew environments.
• Implement safety metrics to monitor when simulators or additional flight crew are warranted (e.g., high-workload scenarios, instrument flight in IMC, or complex approach procedures).
• Maintain documentation showing regulatory alignment, aircraft-specific limitations, and the training program’s risk assessments for audits and audits-ready records.

Case practice: a Part 61 flight school might operate Cessna 172s with an instructor in the left seat and a student; instrument training or cross-country legs could involve an additional instructor acting as an observer in the right seat to provide corrective feedback and ensure CRM standards are met.

Operational Models and Staffing for Training Aircraft

The staffing model for training aircraft varies by program type, aircraft category, and regulatory requirements. A sophisticated, safety-centered approach blends single-PIC training with selective inclusion of an SIC for specific phases or aircraft configurations. Below are representative models and how they apply in practice.

General Aviation Flight Schools: Single-Pilot Instructors and PIC Roles

In many general aviation (GA) flight schools, the standard configuration is a single-pilot trainer with an instructor acting as PIC. Benefits include lower operating costs, simpler crew coordination, and streamlined scheduling. However, this model relies on a well-trained instructor capable of managing all training phases, from preflight briefings to post-flight debriefs, while maintaining constant situational awareness and compliance with SOPs. Practical considerations include ensuring the right-seat occupant is readily available to monitor, but not required to assume the PIC role. The instructor must maintain direct control of the aircraft during student-initiated maneuvers and during critical phases of flight.

Key practices:

• Explicit PIC authority in all flight phases with clearly documented endorsements and limits in the student’s flight log.
• Structured progression from basic handling to advanced maneuvers, instrument practice, and cross-country planning under supervision.
• Use of dual-control aircraft and standardized checklists to ensure consistent response to student inputs and potential mismanagement of controls.

Airline-Style Type Rating Programs: Two-Pilot Requirements

Airline training and type-rating programs often follow a two-pilot model for safety and realism. These programs emphasize cock pit resource management (CRM), decision-making, and communication in a two-person crew. Even during simulator training, the same two-crew dynamic is simulated to replicate line operations. In aircraft used for type rating, certifying authorities frequently require that a qualified instructor and a flight crew member operate in a two-person crew configuration for a given training phase. This approach ensures that the student experiences, under supervision, the full cockpit dynamics typical of airline operations, including workload sharing, equity in workload distribution, and mutual monitoring. Real-world implications include higher training costs but improved preparedness for actual line flying and a stronger safety culture.

Practical deployment tips:

• Adopt a progressive crew-model plan: start with single-PIC flights for basic handling, then add an SIC for instrument and approach work, and finally for complex scenarios and simulator integration.
• Use ground-based CRM training in parallel with flight training to reinforce cockpit teamwork and error management strategies.
• Document crew competencies and log two-pilot practice hours within the training syllabus and gradebooks.

Case Studies in Staffing: Real-world Scenarios

Consider a mid-size flight school that transitioned from sole instructor-led training to a hybrid model with an additional SIC for IFR sessions and high-workload maneuvers. The result was a measurable improvement in student confidence, reduced solo flight cancellations due to weather concerns, and enhanced safety metrics during cross-country exercises. In an airline-type setting, a type-rating course deployed two pilots from the outset, and the instructors rotated in the SIC role to mirror line operations, with performance-based progression criteria tied to CRM and decision-making benchmarks. These examples underscore that staffing choices should be driven by risk assessments, regulatory demands, and the complexity of the training objectives rather than a one-size-fits-all doctrine.

Designing a Comprehensive Training Plane Program: Step-by-Step

Developing a robust training program for aircraft requires a structured approach that aligns regulatory compliance, safety outcomes, and cost efficiency. The following framework provides a step-by-step guide to design, implement, and continuously improve a training plane program, including the decision points on SIC usage.

Assessment and Prerequisites for Program Design

Begin with a needs assessment that defines the target certificates, expected flight hours, and operational contexts (local training, cross-country, IFR, night). Identify the aircraft type(s) in scope and assess their certification basis, performance envelopes, and maintenance requirements. Create a governance model with a safety officer, training manager, and a compliance lead. Prerequisites include:

• Clear regulatory mapping for each training phase and aircraft type.
• Initial risk assessment covering typical flight profiles and mishap scenarios.
• Defined success criteria for each phase (maneuvers mastered, instrument proficiency, CRM competency).

Aircraft Selection, Equipment, and Maintenance Plans

Selection should balance cost, reliability, and training value. Key factors include:

• Aircraft configuration (single-engine vs multi-engine) and its impact on SIC necessity.
• Modern avionics, autopilot, and synthetic training integrations that enhance learning but do not create misalignment with the training goals.
• Maintenance and airworthiness planning to minimize downtime and ensure training continuity.

Practical tip: Map the fleet plan to training calendars, ensuring spare aircraft is available for peak enrollment periods to avoid disruption.

Curriculum, SOPs, and CRM Integration

Develop a comprehensive curriculum that includes ground training, simulator sessions, and flight phases. SOPs should codify PIC/SIC roles, callouts, radio procedures, checklists, and contingency actions. CRM integration is essential to cultivate teamwork, reduce miscommunication, and promote proactive error detection. Components include:

• Structured progression: from basic handling to instrument flight and multi-crew scenarios.
• Role clarity: explicit definitions of PIC and SIC responsibilities for each flight phase.
• Checklists and callouts: standardized phrases to reduce ambiguity under stress.

Measurement, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement

Establish robust metrics to evaluate training effectiveness and safety outcomes. Metrics may include:

• Time-to-competency for each phase and overall hours required for graduation.
• CRM proficiency scores, communication clarity, and workload distribution metrics during simulated and real flights.
• Incident and near-miss reporting frequency, with root-cause analysis and corrective actions tracked.

Implementation tip: use quarterly safety reviews to adjust the SIC usage policy based on performance data, regulatory updates, and fleet changes. Ensure audit trails document how decisions about SIC deployment were made.

FAQs

• Q1: Is a second-in-command required for all flight training programs?
• A1: No. In many Part 61 GA training scenarios, a single instructor acting as PIC is standard, though dual-crew arrangements may be required or recommended for specific phases or aircraft types.
• Q2: When is an SIC explicitly mandated by regulation?
• A2: Mandates vary by jurisdiction and operation. Airline-type training, Part 121/135 operations, and certain high-risk training phases often require two qualified pilots in the cockpit.
• Q3: How does aircraft type influence SIC needs?
• A3: Single-engine trainers typically operate with a single PIC, while multi-engine or high-performance aircraft may necessitate an SIC for certain maneuvers or training phases.
• Q4: What is CRM, and why is it important in training?
• A4: Crew Resource Management (CRM) is a set of techniques for effective teamwork, communication, and decision-making under pressure, critical in multi-crew training environments.
• Q5: Can a flight school switch from single-PIC to dual-crew mid-program?
• A5: Yes. Programs may evolve to dual-crew during instrument training, cross-country phases, or type-rating courses, depending on risk assessment and regulatory guidance.
• Q6: How do regulatory bodies audit training programs for SIC compliance?
• A6: Audits examine SOPs, training syllabi, flight logs, instructor qualifications, and aircraft maintenance records, ensuring regulatory alignment and safety standards.
• Q7: What are the cost implications of adding an SIC?
• A7: Additional staffing increases direct costs (instructor hours, crew pay) and scheduling complexity, but can reduce risk and improve learning outcomes.
• Q8: How should CRM be integrated into a flight training syllabus?
• A8: CRM should be embedded in ground school, flight briefings, simulator debriefs, and actual flight scenarios with explicit roles and communication protocols.
• Q9: Are there best practices for transitioning from solo to two-pilot training?
• A9: Start with clear role definitions, gradual introduction of an SIC, and simultaneous use of CRM techniques to reinforce teamwork while maintaining safety margins.
• Q10: How do insurers view SIC requirements in flight training programs?
• A10: Insurance considerations often favor robust risk management and documented safety practices; an SIC-inclusive program may support favorable terms if it demonstrates reduced risk.
• Q11: Can simulators substitute for an SIC in training?
• A11: High-fidelity simulators can provide safe, effective CRM and crew coordination practice, but real flight experience with a qualified SIC remains valuable for hands-on workload management.
• Q12: What documentation is essential when deploying an SIC policy?
• A12: SOPs, training syllabi, flight logs, instructor qualifications, risk assessments, maintenance records, and regulatory approvals should be maintained and readily accessible.
• Q13: How should a program handle regulatory changes affecting SIC requirements?
• A13: Establish a regulatory watch, update training materials promptly, retrain staff as needed, and ensure all changes are reflected in SOPs and documentation.