NooB logging question

CatchyScreenName

CatchyScreenName

Well-Known Member
Not trying to start an argument or anything as I've tried to read through a couple threads found on google... just trying to make sure I understand correctly and keep my logbook straight.

So, being a pt91 guy I've strictly been logging PIC as stick wiggler. Once I become ATP and type rated at a 121 carrier - only for the purposes of keeping my logbook straight, can I continue to log PIC as stick wiggler since I'm rated category class and type ? or do I have to log it as SIC since I am acting as SIC ? or is it a combination when I'm PM I log SIC and when I'm PF I log PIC ?

I understand TPIC is a whole different thing and I was going to make a whole new column for that when the time comes.

thanks and merry christmas/happy holidays
 
Last edited:
Kinda confused, what type of flying? Is it certified 2 pilot? Getting your ATP shouldn't change anything in that regard.

At least in the 121 world as FO you are always logging SIC so I'm not sure what you are saying. We have a lot of 91 types who can probably help though.
 
bike21 said:
Kinda confused, what type of flying? Is it certified 2 pilot? Getting your ATP shouldn't change anything in that regard.

At least in the 121 world as FO you are always logging SIC so I'm not sure what you are saying. We have a lot of 91 types who can probably help though.
Click to expand...
derp, yes 121 flying, edited original
 
Legally you can log it as PIC according to part 61. It won't do you any good, though. I seem to recall most applications at majors specifying they want TPIC where you ARE the PIC. I wouldn't log it in a separate column. Really at this point more PIC time isn't going to do you much good unless it's actually AS the pilot in command. Keep it simple...just log it SIC.
 
What @poser765 said + if you do put it in a separate column it's gonna look sketchy in an interview. Trust me, no interview team wants to see or take the time to ask why you thought it was a good to idea to do so. It has no bearing on the rest of your career so don't complicate things.
 
CatchyScreenName said:
Not trying to start an argument or anything as I've tried to read through a couple threads found on google... just trying to make sure I understand correctly and keep my logbook straight.

So, being a pt91 guy I've strictly been logging PIC as stick wiggler. Once I become ATP and type rated at a 121 carrier - only for the purposes of keeping my logbook straight, can I continue to log PIC as stick wiggler since I'm rated category class and type ? or do I have to log it as SIC since I am acting as SIC ? or is it a combination when I'm PM I log SIC and when I'm PF I log PIC ?

I understand TPIC is a whole different thing and I was going to make a whole new column for that when the time comes.

thanks and merry christmas/happy holidays
Click to expand...
There are basically 2 kinds of PIC: Part 1 PIC (PIC when flying as captain of the flight, regardless of any "stick wiggling"), and Part 61 PIC (sole [qualified] manipulator of the controls). So if, for example, you are flying as FO, you are PIC qualified and/or typed in the aircraft you are flying, and you are the one manipulating the controls for the leg, then you may log that time as PIC. The Captain will also log that leg as PIC as Captain (Part 1) even though s/he's not manipulating the controls for that leg.
 
bike21 said:
What @poser765 said + if you do put it in a separate column it's gonna look sketchy in an interview. Trust me, no interview team wants to see or take the time to ask why you thought it was a good to idea to do so. It has no bearing on the rest of your career so don't complicate things.
Click to expand...
Is that the old, "at this airline, we don't follow the FAA's rules and will hold it against you if you do" thing?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Is that the old, "at this airline, we don't follow the FAA's rules and will hold it against you if you do" thing?
Click to expand...

Nope, it's the no one cares you thought you were cool by splitting hairs and pretending those legs meant more than they did thought process. Why create something in your logbook that has the potential to raise eyebrows down the road? If one is over-hyped about the need to log acting as PIC on SIC legs go for it. But put in a separate note that future employers won't see.

I just don't understand the desire to notate it different than standard practice. Under 121 you are SIC when you are SIC. Why complicate matters?
 
RamRise said:
If I had a nickle for every time this subject came up...
Click to expand...

and if I had a nickel for every time I read one where people implied that the person asking was whatever they conjured up in their mind...

again, only trying to understand better and keep my logbook organized in the fashion that it is already kept in.

again, i understand 3000% that TPIC or Captain time is a totally different thing and I am not trying to fake that by any means.... sigh....

the regs are what the regs are and at this point, as evidenced by the many times as people wish they had a nickel..., it is slightly confusing to someone entering 121 because it is contrary to what they have already learned....

i'm not worried about explaining my logbook in the least bit. I've found that 99% of the irrational fears that get passed around as old wives tales by pilots are not worth worrying about. if someone asked me why I logged it that way I would simply say 'because I logged it per the regs' which I haven't done yet and which is why one of my questions was 'do i have to log it as SIC?'.
 
Ask yourself this, why? In what way will logging it as such help you down the road? A self-pat on the back perhaps? Does it matter in the long run?

I'm not arguing the legality of doing so, but it can have the appearance of the attitude of a 'right seat captain' which could garner negative views during an interview. You've already mentioned it yourself by saying you're not trying to 'fake it' before it was even brought up. Thus the conversation and potential concern.

My thoughts on the matter, not berating you as it is a good question but I don't see the necessity of it. Too much work for something that is ultimately trivial and might (no assurances) raise eyebrows during an interview.
 
bike21 said:
Ask yourself this, why? In what way will logging it as such help you down the road? A self-pat on the back perhaps? Does it matter in the long run?

I'm not arguing the legality of doing so, but it can have the appearance of the attitude of a 'right seat captain' which could garner negative views during an interview. You've already mentioned it yourself by saying you're not trying to 'fake it' before it was even brought up. Thus the conversation and potential concern.

My thoughts on the matter, not berating you as it is a good question but I don't see the necessity of it. Too much work for something that is ultimately trivial and might (no assurances) raise eyebrows during an interview.
Click to expand...
This right here. Look at some place like Southwest. They have a TPIC requirement and the explicitly state that they only want time where the applicant is in charge of the ship...not sole manipulator time. Airlines don't care in the least how many hours you have as pilot flying. They want to know what kind of experience you have in leadership, in charge of others in a flight environment.

Logging part 61 PIC as an fo in an ERJ is doing you no favors. Maybe it could help you out for the PIC time needed for upgrade? Maybe. At BEST logging pic time in two seperate columns nets you exactly zero gain. At worst it could muddy an interview experience because you have to explain it, and then watch as all that time is promptly disregarded.

Our logbooks are our own, and we are all free to log how we see fit. This is also a very competitive career with lots of comfortably. You can log it, but know there are going to be thousands of other applicants who are doing it the way we are suggesting. They aren't going to have to have an awkward conversation about their logbook in their interview.
 
CatchyScreenName said:
and if I had a nickel for every time I read one where people implied that the person asking was whatever they conjured up in their mind...

again, only trying to understand better and keep my logbook organized in the fashion that it is already kept in.

again, i understand 3000% that TPIC or Captain time is a totally different thing and I am not trying to fake that by any means.... sigh....

the regs are what the regs are and at this point, as evidenced by the many times as people wish they had a nickel..., it is slightly confusing to someone entering 121 because it is contrary to what they have already learned....

i'm not worried about explaining my logbook in the least bit. I've found that 99% of the irrational fears that get passed around as old wives tales by pilots are not worth worrying about. if someone asked me why I logged it that way I would simply say 'because I logged it per the regs' which I haven't done yet and which is why one of my questions was 'do i have to log it as SIC?'.
Click to expand...
And then you'll have to explain it to the major interviewers who are my parents age or older who border line don't care anymore, are used to seeing things one way and still think you can build multi time flying canceled checks. Do it how everyone else does, unnecessary questions, are well, unnecessary.
 
CatchyScreenName said:
Not trying to start an argument or anything as I've tried to read through a couple threads found on google... just trying to make sure I understand correctly and keep my logbook straight.

So, being a pt91 guy I've strictly been logging PIC as stick wiggler. Once I become ATP and type rated at a 121 carrier - only for the purposes of keeping my logbook straight, can I continue to log PIC as stick wiggler since I'm rated category class and type ? or do I have to log it as SIC since I am acting as SIC ? or is it a combination when I'm PM I log SIC and when I'm PF I log PIC ?

I understand TPIC is a whole different thing and I was going to make a whole new column for that when the time comes.

thanks and merry christmas/happy holidays
Click to expand...

61.51 PIC on PF legs, as far as the FAA and ins companies are concerned. Just don't let it "leak" into your airline totals. "signing for the plane" isn't (exactly) a concept in the FARs, and "61.51" (And its associated LOIs) don't exist to the airlines.

-Fox
 
bike21 said:
Nope, it's the no one cares you thought you were cool by splitting hairs and pretending those legs meant more than they did thought process. Why create something in your logbook that has the potential to raise eyebrows down the road?
Click to expand...

121 isn't necessarily the end of the road for every pilot, and not logging PIC that one is entitled to (and filling it out on the associated 8710s, and so on) can potentially impact insurance premiums and coverage, affect job applications to 91/135/141 companies, etc.

I just don't understand the desire to notate it different than standard practice. Under 121 you are SIC when you are SIC. Why complicate matters?
Click to expand...

Because, unfortunately, "PIC" is an overloaded term, with meanings that vary by application... just like "cross country."

The airlines choose to do what they want in their sandbox, and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't directly affect the outside world.

Personally, I do not log any SIC time as PIC...but having an electronic logbook allows me to derive it later, should I need to.

-Fox
 
@Acrofox agreed in that regard, though the likelihood of someone going from 121 to a job that would need proof of such times for insurance reasons is low.

I'll fully concur that the beauty of logging electronic is that you can always go extract data if needed for special purposes. Just don't write it in pen or print it for an interview to confuse matters will remain my suggestion.
 
CatchyScreenName said:
and if I had a nickel for every time I read one where people implied that the person asking was whatever they conjured up in their mind...

again, only trying to understand better and keep my logbook organized in the fashion that it is already kept in.

again, i understand 3000% that TPIC or Captain time is a totally different thing and I am not trying to fake that by any means.... sigh....

the regs are what the regs are and at this point, as evidenced by the many times as people wish they had a nickel..., it is slightly confusing to someone entering 121 because it is contrary to what they have already learned....

i'm not worried about explaining my logbook in the least bit. I've found that 99% of the irrational fears that get passed around as old wives tales by pilots are not worth worrying about. if someone asked me why I logged it that way I would simply say 'because I logged it per the regs' which I haven't done yet and which is why one of my questions was 'do i have to log it as SIC?'.
Click to expand...

Wasn't trying to condemn your quest for truth on the subject, I was merely making a smart remark because I've beat this horse too many times and the answer is clear in my head. I commend you for getting educated on the topic as much as possible. When you go into an interview situation, you will know you are doing it legally and correctly, while simultaneously knowing what the airline expects of you. In this line of work I've found their is little room for ignorance and even less for deception.
The other thing is people who try simplify things may be right the majority of the time, but don't have the full picture painted.
In my electronic logbook, I've logged all my time as a part 135 SIC as SIC, but created a separate column for 'performing the duties of PIC under the supervision of a PIC', yes its long-winded, but my interviewer was satisfied with it as proof of meeting ATP requirements, as well as proof I had flown the Pilatus a lot and not just yanked on the gear and talked on the radios.
Of course this was me on the quest for 1500. Once you get to the 121 world, I'm not sure how much logging sole manipulator time will even help career advancement, as the others have stated.
Anyway good luck, and don't be afraid to use the search function :p, there are at least two threads I started on this topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top