SIC Position

moxiepilot

moxiepilot

Well-Known Member
Another thread got me to thinking that sometimes the not-so-obvious needs to be pointed out.

A common scenario pops up here every now and again about being an SIC on a plane that does not require an SIC - and then the argument devolves into loggable time, certification requirements and other rules. So, I wanted to take this in a different direction -

Let's assume that a pilot is hired as a SIC in a plane for whatever reason, and the flight time is not loggable.

Why on Earth would they ever consider taking a job as a SIC where they couldn't log time?

Perhaps what you didn't realize is that the pilot comes into the aforementioned job with 4,000 hours TT, 1,750 Multi and 700 hours multi turbine.

Perhaps it is because they already have time to meet basic minimums or insurance requirements and want experience in a certain type of aircraft. Or it is because they want to make connections which could land a PIC job in the same type of aircraft. Networking, networking, networking...

I can't tell you how many people I know that landed jobs (high quality jobs) because they were working at Flight Safety as the simulator SIC because of a lack of pairing for that event.

I only bring this up to point out that sometimes having a debate of loggable time is a mute point - sometimes jobs are a means to an end.
 
I frequently do non loggable contract work in addition to my normal job, basically sitting there for insurance purposes. It pays good and it's a nice chance to fly another aircraft even if the experience doesn't count for anything.
 
The discussions of what is loggable time involves understanding what "counts" for FAA certificate, rating and currency requirements. As is often pointed out that may or may not have a relation to experience that "counts" for potential career advancement.

The same operator that couldn't care less about loggable safety pilot PIC time in a 152 may well consider non-loggable time acting as non-FAA-required crew in a jet. Makes perfect sense.

(Then, of course, there's the money.)
 
I have 170 hours in the right seat of a King Air 200. The FAA doesn't care if I'm there or not but my brain doesn't know the difference between that and SIC in an Embraer 145. When I went through Beech 1900 systems and sim a few years later, I breezed through, AFTER having a rough time during the end of my first year at AirNet. Why? Because I'd seen it before. The FAA may not care to count the hours for one thing in their regulations, but they can't stop me from learning a thing or two and making connections. Can't log an hour for crewmember currency. CAN log the experience in your memory and log the phone numbers in your phone.
 
I think you find most people that ask these SIC questions are needing the time for their ATP. People that have the time usually won't care.
 
I have had a similar question for a while, so I'll try and get some opinions here..

The company I work for flies king air 90's, which are single pilot airplanes. Most operations and contracts that we do require us to have an SIC on board. Most of the SIC's here have less than 1500 hours, and are trying to build time for the ATP. We don't have autopilots and the flights are 5 plus hours, and we fly lines within a 150 foot tolerance, so usually each pilot flies half. My understanding is that I can count the sole manipulator time as PIC toward a certificate,rating, or recency experience. The time that I am not sole manipulator I log as SIC and total time but make note of it in a separate column and would not put that time on an FAA application. We have had people move onto corporate and airline jobs and they accepted the SIC time even though it was not "legal FAA time" Does anyone think that a potential employer would look unfavorably on me logging this SIC time? Also if I were to get an airline interview I would only put the legal FAA time that would count towards my ATP on airline apps, but my logbook includes the SIC time so there would be a several hundred hour difference between airline apps and my logbook. Any suggestions or opinions? It's not too late for me to scratch the SIC time out of the logbook if I need to...
 
I have a question that is SLIGHTLY different from the one asked. The aircraft in question is a Citation 500. Normally the aicraft requires 2 pilots. However a pilot can get checked out to fly it single pilot if he meets certain experience requirements. If I flew with a pilot that was qualified to fly it single pilot could I log SIC? Or would I have to fly with a pilot that was typed in the airplane but not single pilot C500 rated in order to log SIC?
 
You would need an SIC type to log the time. I do right seat work in a 525 from time to time but with no SIC type and being that the PIC is single pilot typed there's no legal way to log it.
 
as I recall under 135 (and it's been several years) you must have an auto pilot for single pilot operations...so if you have no autopilot, and are under 135 (of course you have to have a SIC135 qual) then I think you log it.

One of you smart guys want to correct me? :)
 
If the PIC is legal to log the time single pilot, there is no way to log it SIC unless the required equipment is not there. No ifs ands or buts about it. Stop trying to justify a joke of flight time, go CFI for a couple months, it won't kill ya.
 
If there is an AP there and you decide not to use it too bad, no SIC. Stop trying to justify insurance time as log-able time.
 
If you meet the conditions to log SIC sure. However a PIC can't chose to not use the equipped AP so that you can log it.
 
If you meet the conditions to log SIC sure. However a PIC can't chose to not use the equipped AP so that you can log it.
 
jhugz said:
If the PIC is legal to log the time single pilot, there is no way to log it SIC unless the required equipment is not there. No ifs ands or buts about it...
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true for 135 passenger carrying operations.

(edit to add:) nor for 91(k) either, apparently. :)
 
Sure it's required, but is a SIC really required in a Single Pilot Airplane. No. Just saying. This is all grey. Not all flight departments view this as quality time. Hate to burst the bubble, just saying.
 
SteveC said:
I don't think that's true for 135 passenger carrying operations.

(edit to add:) nor for 91(k) either, apparently. :)
Click to expand...

You're wrong. There are LOIs out there. Do the research as I don't really give a crap. Others may.
 
SteveC said:
I don't think that's true for 135 passenger carrying operations.

(edit to add:) nor for 91(k) either, apparently. :)
Click to expand...

You're wrong. There are LOIs out there. Do the research as I don't really give a crap. Others may.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top