Logging PIC with the new R-ATP rule

These kids these days! Honestly, I never put a .1 in my logbook that I didn't actually fly and uh "earn". Like, it didn't even occur to me. And maybe that makes me a loser sucking hind tit while some balls-out liar is flying the space shuttle, and no one is the wiser. Dunno. Probably so.

But, here's the thing that gets my hackles all raised: The notion that it's somehow Nuanced. Like, "well, I'm just lying a little bit". You're PIC or you're not. It's not a "lil teensy lie between wink-wink friends", it's BS, plain and simple. If you're going to lie about who you are and what you've done, do us all a favor and Lie Big. At least then I can respect the high-ferrous content of you BS, rather than all this wishy-washy "well, you know, technically I could be considered PIC by my Mom and the Pope because I tithed often and didn't molest too many kids" absurdity.

There's nothing complex about this to people who aren't jerks. Are you the poor, unlucky bastard who is responsible for everything short of a meteor hitting the airplane? Then you can log PIC. Are you not? Then shut up, learn, and be glad you don't have the headaches of dealing with the whole shooting match, which includes you, snivelling, line-jumping F/O, and your "me first" BS.

Too much?

Where's my walker? I SAID WHERE'S MY WALKER?. SPEAK SLOWLY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
 
You can log PIC. You're not fooling anybody though. FedEx and Delta will probably blacklist you though, for misrepresenting yourself.
 
z987k said:
Mmmm not really. Refer to the - the only reason you're captain is because your number is lower, not because you are god's gift to aviation thread.
Click to expand...

Mostly.

That said, I flew with plenty of guys who had lower seniority numbers than me but had busted upgrade and were still in the right seat.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Can't speak to 91, but in 135 the laughter would come in peals, possibly complete with some fat old CP falling out of his chair and having a heart attack.

The answer is No. Log PIC when you're the guy signing the paperwork. Or be laughed at and shown the door. Your call. But remember that poor old CP and his kids when you make your choice.
Click to expand...


I fully agree, EXCEPT at the places that never look at your logbook, and you just tell them "oh I have X many hours turbine PIC" and they say "oh sure, you're qualified and insurable, you've got the job."
 
Boris Badenov said:
These kids these days! Honestly, I never put a .1 in my logbook that I didn't actually fly and uh "earn". Like, it didn't even occur to me. And maybe that makes me a loser sucking hind tit while some balls-out liar is flying the space shuttle, and no one is the wiser. Dunno. Probably so.

But, here's the thing that gets my hackles all raised: The notion that it's somehow Nuanced. Like, "well, I'm just lying a little bit". You're PIC or you're not. It's not a "lil teensy lie between wink-wink friends", it's BS, plain and simple. If you're going to lie about who you are and what you've done, do us all a favor and Lie Big. At least then I can respect the high-ferrous content of you BS, rather than all this wishy-washy "well, you know, technically I could be considered PIC by my Mom and the Pope because I tithed often and didn't molest too many kids" absurdity.

There's nothing complex about this to people who aren't jerks. Are you the poor, unlucky bastard who is responsible for everything short of a meteor hitting the airplane? Then you can log PIC. Are you not? Then shut up, learn, and be glad you don't have the headaches of dealing with the whole shooting match, which includes you, snivelling, line-jumping F/O, and your "me first" BS.

Too much?

Where's my walker? I SAID WHERE'S MY WALKER?. SPEAK SLOWLY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Click to expand...
For R-ATP's that poached PIC to meet their 250 requirement, how should they treat that? I imagine it would be wise to treat it like SIC for 121 consideration to keep the PIC pure.
 
Read this thread for my take on the subject:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/logging-pic-135.154948/

Specifically this post, but there is lots of other comments and ideas in the rest of the thread as well:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/logging-pic-135.154948/#post-1986540
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/logging-pic-135.154948/#post-1986540

SteveC said:
I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I don't think it stands up to what happens in real life, at least if the time is recorded in the manner that I suggest. Three columns in the log book: PIC; SIC; sole manipulator PIC.

Case 1; a company allows the use of "sole manipulator" PIC time on their application, maybe because their insurance company accepts it towards required minimums to act as PIC (such as the company that I work for). Simply add the PIC and Part 61 PIC columns together. Or that same kind of PIC time can be used when an F/O is upgrading to captain a couple years down the road - he already has the insurance company required "PIC time-in-type" box checked off.

Case 2; a company only wants to see "acting PIC" time because, well, that really is true PIC time by the definition of the word. OK, that's perfectly understandable (and in fact I wish the "logging PIC" rules had been written to match the "acting PIC" rules), so in those cases the Part 61 PIC column gets added to SIC time when filling out that company's application. I have a very hard time believing that an interviewer would look askance at that practice, and the worst that I could see happening is that they are flipping through a logbook and pop up with a nasty-toned question about the "Part 61 PIC" column: Interviewer asks; "What the hell is this? PIC time when you weren't really in charge of the flight? Are you trying to pull something here?" Interviewee; "No sir, that is simply loggable PIC time where I was not the acting PIC. There are situations where being able to provide that data is useful, but it is obvious that I am not trying to fool anyone since it is not hidden in the regular PIC column, and it is not included on the application in front of you under PIC time, but rather in the SIC time totals that I have provided." I have a hard time imagining that a company would be upset that a candidate actually understands "loggable" versus "acting" PIC.

*shrug*

This is not a "gray" area, it is simply true that certain kinds of pilot time are loggable PIC time in some circumstances, and those very same hours are not considered PIC time in other circumstances. Knowledge is power. I think that knowing the difference between acting PIC and logging PIC time, and understanding when it's appropriate to use it to my advantage (and also understanding when it would work against me) only makes sense.

I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone, to log time the way that I do. I'm just on a crusade to counter all of the wrong information out there and lay out the options so people can make informed decisions. I fully understand why people talk so negatively about logging PIC time where the pilot was not truly the Pilot In Charge - but I also think it's silly to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Click to expand...
 
Box hauler said:
PIC stands for Pilot is constipated, because when the turds hit the fan the FO crapping himself
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Hey, here is another joke. Let's see if you get it.

71681547.png
 
Patrick said:
I fully agree, EXCEPT at the places that never look at your logbook, and you just tell them "oh I have X many hours turbine PIC" and they say "oh sure, you're qualified and insurable, you've got the job."
Click to expand...
FWIW, of the aviation interviews I've had:
- The first one (part 91 photo operation) looked at my log book as an afterthought to the interview.
- The second one (Beagle) looked at it in detail with a magnifying glass and a calculator.
- The third one (XJT) glanced at it.
- The fourth one (SkyWest) looked at it in a level of detail between that of Beagle and ExpressJet during the interview debrief.

I'm not saying any of these approaches are more correct than the other, but yeah. Tell the truth, log honestly, don't be a d-bag.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
For R-ATP's that poached PIC to meet their 250 requirement, how should they treat that? I imagine it would be wise to treat it like SIC for 121 consideration to keep the PIC pure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with you. I mean I know I start sounding a bit nuts on the subject, but A) I think PIC time is vitally important, even if it's in a 152 and B) I just cannot stand people who think the rules are for other people.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
FWIW, of the aviation interviews I've had:
- The first one (part 91 photo operation) looked at my log book as an afterthought to the interview.
- The second one (Beagle) looked at it in detail with a magnifying glass and a calculator.
- The third one (XJT) glanced at it.
- The fourth one (SkyWest) looked at it in a level of detail between that of Beagle and ExpressJet during the interview debrief.

I'm not saying any of these approaches are more correct than the other, but yeah. Tell the truth, log honestly, don't be a d-bag.
Click to expand...
I've had no interviews where it was much more than an afterthought.
 
z987k said:
I've had no interviews where it was much more than an afterthought.
Click to expand...

I may be a witch in church on this one, but I sorta halfway wish they'd look a little harder at logbooks in 135. Not like magnifying glass and calculator (I mean I'm sure I've made a few errors here and there...who hasn't?), but maybe like "Well, does it make sense that General Yeager Jr here flew 1300 hours in six months in his buddy's Apache that regrettably went to scrap dealer shortly thereafter?" I mean I figure when you get to 3-4k and have a few jobs behind you, if the interviewer knows anything about anything, they can figure out whether or not the time you present matches up with your employment history, but I thought it was a bit questionable when I showed up to FLX with 1300 (honest, genuine, real, I swear!) hours and all they did was look at the last page and say "welcome aboard!"

There were a couple of dudes in my initial class there who. Well. Let's just say I was a bit skeptical about their logbooks. But then, they washed out of training, so maybe it's self-enforcing?
 
Boris Badenov said:
I may be a witch in church on this one, but I sorta halfway wish they'd look a little harder at logbooks in 135. Not like magnifying glass and calculator (I mean I'm sure I've made a few errors here and there...who hasn't?), but maybe like "Well, does it make sense that General Yeager Jr here flew 1300 hours in six months in his buddy's Apache that regrettably went to scrap dealer shortly thereafter?" I mean I figure when you get to 3-4k and have a few jobs behind you, if the interviewer knows anything about anything, they can figure out whether or not the time you present matches up with your employment history, but I thought it was a bit questionable when I showed up to FLX with 1300 (honest, genuine, real, I swear!) hours and all they did was look at the last page and say "welcome aboard!"
Click to expand...
I kind of wish they did to, but I've also done either a sim eval or actually went flying on my interviews thus far as well. That was probably worth more than any logbook.
 
Last edited:
Boris Badenov said:
I may be a witch in church on this one, but I sorta halfway wish they'd look a little harder at logbooks in 135. Not like magnifying glass and calculator (I mean I'm sure I've made a few errors here and there...who hasn't?), but maybe like "Well, does it make sense that General Yeager Jr here flew 1300 hours in six months in his buddy's Apache that regrettably went to scrap dealer shortly thereafter?" I mean I figure when you get to 3-4k and have a few jobs behind you, if the interviewer knows anything about anything, they can figure out whether or not the time you present matches up with your employment history, but I thought it was a bit questionable when I showed up to FLX with 1300 (honest, genuine, real, I swear!) hours and all they did was look at the last page and say "welcome aboard!"

There were a couple of dudes in my initial class there who. Well. Let's just say I was a bit skeptical about their logbooks. But then, they washed out of training, so maybe it's self-enforcing?
Click to expand...

I've had multiple interviews in the 91 and 135 world (including when I interviewed at your current shop) where they haven't even looked at it, or if they did, MAYBE looked at the last page or two.

I agree, if you hop in a sim or airplane, it becomes pretty damn obvious pretty damn quick if you claim to have 5k hours when you really have 2k, but, if you want to fib a bit, you can probably pad your 850 hours into 1000 and no one would know the difference, again, unless they went through your logbook page by page with a calculator.

On the flip side, I think once you get a little bit up the pilot ladder, and you've had a few jobs, you can start to guestimate hours flown per year/ per job and arrive at a pretty accurate level of experience by looking at a resume.
I used to just kill me though when I'd get students who showed up to get their Comm Multi Instrument and had logbooks with "230 hours" who couldn't even taxi a 172 in a straight line, yet supposedly had 190 hours in type.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top