jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Chieftain/Navajo
Logging Turbine PIC
- Thread starter dakovich
- Start date
Chieftain/Navajo
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Ah, I gotcha. Didn't know that!
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Hey wheelsup,
I'll tell you what. I'll go and tell my director of flight ops that I'm gonna start logging PIC time even though I'm an SIC on a leg and when he asks my reasoning I'll tell him that Airnet gets to do it so I can too. You can go ahead and tell them the same thing at your company. $10 says we both get laughed our of our bosses respective offices.
I'll tell you what. I'll go and tell my director of flight ops that I'm gonna start logging PIC time even though I'm an SIC on a leg and when he asks my reasoning I'll tell him that Airnet gets to do it so I can too. You can go ahead and tell them the same thing at your company. $10 says we both get laughed our of our bosses respective offices.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
Why does your director of flight operations care what you log in your logbook?
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
I could care less what you do! Just don't shoot the messenger!
If I did it I would get laughed at - I don't have an ATP or a PIC type in the CL-65.
Flysher
Well-Known Member
Ive done this same sorta thing before in a Kingair 200, but I never logged the time. Someone once told me never to log time in anything that I couldnt explain all the systems in it, because if its in your logbook its fair game for questioning.
Of course if you went to simuflite im guessin you could answer some questions
Of course if you went to simuflite im guessin you could answer some questions
How can you log SIC in an aircraft that doesn't require two pilots?
I was an "SIC" at Airnet. I logged total time when not the sole manipulator and PIC when I was at the controls. That time is worthless to any future operator that looks at PIC time as only valid if you sign for the aircraft.
But it doesn't matter if its 91 or 135. Regardless you aren't going to sign for the aircraft so your PIC time is with an "*" next to it.
But I honestly don't see how you could log SIC time. A Navajo doesn't require two pilots?
I was an "SIC" at Airnet. I logged total time when not the sole manipulator and PIC when I was at the controls. That time is worthless to any future operator that looks at PIC time as only valid if you sign for the aircraft.
But it doesn't matter if its 91 or 135. Regardless you aren't going to sign for the aircraft so your PIC time is with an "*" next to it.
But I honestly don't see how you could log SIC time. A Navajo doesn't require two pilots?
You've chosen not to log PIC time on Part 135 legs when the regulations are perfectly clear that you COULD log that time. That's your choice. Others will choose otherwise. You'll have just as hard a time at an interview when you present your logbooks and get asked "you could have logged this time as PIC, why didn't you?". Almost any answer you give will tag you as "not that smart" which isn't the way I'd like to end up in an interview.
You seem to be concerned that companies you apply at will not be able to distinguish between PIC time logged in accordance with the FARs and PIC time where the person logging the time acted as PIC. Believe me - aviation companies have been around this one multiple times. If they WANT to know your PIC time when you were ACTING as PIC they'll ask - otherwise they won't.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how you can log PIC time, which in GOOD FAITH means ACTING AS PIC when you don't have a PIC PROFICIENCY CHECK. Ya'll keep talking about the difference between acting as and operating the controls, and that's a bunch of BS.
If your ops specs require two pilots, or can designate your flight as requiring two pilots then you are hence required to have an SIC.
If your ops specs require two pilots, or can designate your flight as requiring two pilots then you are hence required to have an SIC.
Flysher
Well-Known Member
Actually mike I believe that if its 135 and theres passengers on board you are required to have an SIC ( I could be wrong though, these countless nights on standby are making me dumb )
Dont forget super low takeoffs also. Plus I think most companies write it into there ops specs as a safety factor so if its in there, its legit to log.
Don't log part-135 PIC because you're not.
If you don't meet the part-135 mins and have not accomplished a part-135 PIC checkride with the FAA, you may not act as PIC of an aircraft flying under that part.
B767Driver was a check airman for a company that flew 135 and transitioned to 121 at a later date, I'll make sure he sees the thread and offers his insight because he's got first hand experience.
Airlines want butts in seats so they might be liable to tell you anything to staff the right seat. It's all about the FARs and the Opspecs of the company in question.
If you don't meet the part-135 mins and have not accomplished a part-135 PIC checkride with the FAA, you may not act as PIC of an aircraft flying under that part.
B767Driver was a check airman for a company that flew 135 and transitioned to 121 at a later date, I'll make sure he sees the thread and offers his insight because he's got first hand experience.
Airlines want butts in seats so they might be liable to tell you anything to staff the right seat. It's all about the FARs and the Opspecs of the company in question.
Yeah those are all cases. But if you aren't PAX or have it in your OP Specs you are either logging PIC or not. No SIC.
I miss the breakroom. Now I just sit on the couch and drink all day.
tgrayson
New Member
The reason you're having a hard time accepting this is that you have constructed your own definition of logging PIC which doesn't match the regulations. We're offering you an opportunity to gain a higher level of knowledge, but you'll have to drop your preconceptions first.
The difference between the two has been well documented for a long time by the FAA. There are tons of interpretations from the General Counsel's Office endorsing the concept, so it's not BS as far as the FAA is concerned.
If you disagree, then please offer some evidence to support your point of view. You claimed that Part 135 regulations forbade logging of PIC time in this situation, but you have provided no references in support of that contention. I don't believe that such references exist. On the other hand, I have cited the appropriate regulation (61.51) and given you a letter of interp from the FAA. Please explain why these are insufficient for you.
For 135 passenger carrying operations, you are required to have 2 qualified pilots for IFR flights, unless you have the OpSpec authorizing the use of an auto-pilot in lieu of a second in command. The PIC must also be checked on the use of the auto-pilot every 12 months in order to use that OpSpec. That being said, the company may still assign 2 pilots to any flight and as long as you've had an SIC checkride, you can log SIC under 135.
My company operates 2 different types of single pilot airplanes, but sometimes due to customer request or a day with over 8 hours of flying, we assign a second captain to the flight (we don't have SIC's). In cases like this, one pilot logs PIC and one SIC, usually based on if they're the PF or PNF.
Now, on a Part 91 leg, you can log PIC as long as you meet the requirements to log it under Part 91 and/or Part 61. However, logging PIC and acting as PIC are two different things that have been discussed before, so I won't go into that.
Chris
A Part 135 Check Airman.
My company operates 2 different types of single pilot airplanes, but sometimes due to customer request or a day with over 8 hours of flying, we assign a second captain to the flight (we don't have SIC's). In cases like this, one pilot logs PIC and one SIC, usually based on if they're the PF or PNF.
Now, on a Part 91 leg, you can log PIC as long as you meet the requirements to log it under Part 91 and/or Part 61. However, logging PIC and acting as PIC are two different things that have been discussed before, so I won't go into that.
Chris
A Part 135 Check Airman.
Flysher
Well-Known Member
Yea its crazy here now, last week we had 17 guys in there at one point. They more or less made the sort at city meet mandatory now for pilots, I think they just laid off the real workers down there so they could save money by using us :whatever:
tgrayson
New Member
And on the 135 leg as well, as indicated by Part 61.51 and the letter of interpretation I offered from the FAA's General Counsel's Office. Neither Part 91 nor 135 specify the requirements to log PIC time.