Dual vs PIC logging issue
- Thread starter MNFlyboy
- Start date
Seems like he has that taken care of.
MNFlyboy
Well-Known Member
Actually the word you'd be looking for is HAD, I lost my job as a CFI because the company in St. Paul I was instructing for went under 3 weeks after I joined them.
Now I drive a fuel truck at an FBO and deliver the Pioneer Press and New York Times on Sunday's and a few other days here and there.
Any flying jobs would be appreciated. Almost anything . . . .
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Why short change yourself?
Your arguments don't make any sense. I would rather have a properly filled out logbook so that I would be more competitive in a job search. At the worst, if a CFI lets a potential employer see their log book and they didn't log PIC properly (no PIC during Dual) it would be reason enough to hire X CFI with 10 hours less than the CFI with the bad log book.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
Why not just keep an accurate log of your flight time?
I understand it is completely within the FAA definition of Pilot in Command to log PIC while also logging dual time. I just have in all ways been under the impression (as well as told by few people who conduct interviews for airlines) that many companies will not honor that as PIC time during an interview. They wanted to see PIC time while you were the final authority of the aircraft. I have always offered to log PIC in my own students log book if they so choose but I usually tell the aforementioned story. Personal choice i guess. To each his own.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
It's funny the only place I've ever heard this was at UND. Regardless, its not too difficult to take out the PIC during dual flights if the person interviewing must know how much PIC time was not during dual flight.
you are not the final authority if you are a student with an instructor on board. if really goes down, who really has the final say? the reason you hear this at UND is because the instructor is employed by the university, not an independant contractor. If a CFI at UND gave a student final authority, they would get fired pretty quick. it is common sense that if you are receiving instruction, you have less experience in that type of flying, therefore, you are not the final authority. interviewers like common sense, not people looking for loopholes.
FlyMan07
New Member
Please find the phrase "final authority" in CFR Title 14 61.51.
I believe that you will find the phrase "sole manipulator of the controls" in regards to logging flight time as PIC in CFR Title 14 61.51. I surely hope that students at UND are manipulating the controls while being "instructed," as it would be quite pointless for a student to pay an instructor to fly themselves around all of the time. I believe that this would be considered an illegal charter by UND, as the "students" would be actually be paying passengers, not students.
:rotfl:
I also find it hard to believe that regional airlines that hire UND grads look for, or can find any pilots with common sense. I don't think anyone with common sense would interview for a regional job! Even though I don't find 61.51 to be a loophole, by using your logic I also think that a regional airline would want pilots used to using loopholes, as regionals take advantage of every loophole on the books to overwork and underpay pilots.
LOGS
Well-Known Member
I think this is an issue that becomes less important with the more time you have. Just because you technically can doesn't always mean it's right too. Also wouldn't it be an issue if both the student and instructor log PIC? If there was an accident/incident, who would the FAA go after? Really unless you're trying to meet some minimum like 135 or an insurance min. I wouldn't think it would be worth it imo.
=Jason-
=Jason-
BIGRIG
Well-Known Member
There are issues that arise in rapidly expanding regionals where the pilot meets the FAA ATP mins but does not meet ICAO ATP mins. Therefore if the pilot upgrades to Capt he cannot fly internationally. I think you need 1500 PIC time in order to qualify for ICAO ATP. However you are able to use half of your SIC time to help satisfy that requirement. (Not sure, someone correct me if I am wrong) Some people that were hired during 2005-2007 were just graduating and hadn't instructed a day in their life. That PIC time that they could log from UND would help in getting their international restriction removed.
That said I went back and fixed my logbook because you never know, it might make the difference in you getting hired or not. No interviewer would call you out on it if you did. If they ask just tell them that the time is able to be legally logged therefore you logged it.
That said I went back and fixed my logbook because you never know, it might make the difference in you getting hired or not. No interviewer would call you out on it if you did. If they ask just tell them that the time is able to be legally logged therefore you logged it.
juxtapilot
Snowflake
I don't think any of this makes sense. What does being employed by UND have to do with anything? UND doesn't make the rules on what you are permitted to log, the FAA does. As far as I know, an FAR isn't a loophole.. :dunno:
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
following FAR definitions of loggable time is not a loophole.
UND isnt always right. cheer on, cheerleader.
twotwowoo
New Member
I agree. 61.51 says you can log PIC in any aircraft that you are appropriately rated for. I don't know why you wouldn't long every flight as PIC, even if it is with an instructor. You're rated in the airplane, you're the sole manipulator of the controls, you're PIC.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
This.
Blip16
Well-Known Member
i know you can do it. i have done it a few times myself, i have done it a few times for my students; but at the end of the day, the extra 100-150 PIC won't make a difference. the difference in my book looks like around 200hrs, i don't really care.
going back in your logbook and adding all the PIC time when it was not logged that way would be falsifying your logbook IMHO.
going back in your logbook and adding all the PIC time when it was not logged that way would be falsifying your logbook IMHO.
BIGRIG
Well-Known Member
What about going back through your logbook and fixing errors that were made in addition, or maybe you did a multi engine flight and forgot to put an entry under the multi engine category. Its your time and your logbook, you can put what ever you want in there. You just have to be able to justify it. Its not falsifying if you flew the airplane.
msmspilot
Well-Known Member
Correcting an error is falsifying your logbook?!?! Man. If the FAA ever saw my logbook they'd throw me under the jail then.
Strike through the error (if there's something written there), initial it, and correct it. No problem.
If I forgot to log the time under a certain column that it could legally go under, it's correcting an error not falsifying. Falsifying is putting in time I didn't fly.
Blip16
Well-Known Member
i view it is falsifying because the instructor logged it, not me. it is one thing to fix a legit mistake in addition, etc, but to go back thru and put in all PIC time for every lesson you flew? what if the instructor took controls on 323 lesson 65 1 time, and you put in all the pic time for the lesson, well you weren't really pic for the entire length of the lesson.
I contemplated going back thru my book and adding all the PIC time because i could, but like i said, it is only a difference of 200, so what difference does that really make when i have over 2000? but you are both correct it is your book put whatever you want in there. i just don't see the need in my case. If it makes you sleep better at night knowing that you got to log 150hrs of PIC while you were flight training, then more power to you.