if the aircraft type certificate or company requires two pilots, and the other pilot is not typed in the aircraft (PIC/SIC) he can not log PIC time, even when sole manipulator of the controls, unless the PNF is the company check airman.
I say go for it. The Otter is a fun airplane, and at least you are building some hours. Is the other pilot an MEI? I don't know how relevant this is, but in future interviews they might be a little suspicious of the time considering you are in the right seat and the other pilot is going to be the real PIC. Just something to think about!
Except if we were in Germany, then you would get the top bunk?I agree that the pilot needs the type rating. Per the regulation, an SIC type rating doesn't do, but per the LOI, I posted previously, it did. But per the Order that someone else posted, it didn't.
The check airman issue isn't relevant.
i probably owe him a few cases of beer for an arrangement like this, correct? :bandit:
well, i would probably counter that by acting as sole manipulator i am equally "real" PIC as the other guy.
well, i would probably counter that by acting as sole manipulator i am equally "real" PIC as the other guy.
its just his butt on the line if insurance needs to come after someone.
i probably owe him a few cases of beer for an arrangement like this, correct? :bandit:
Mostly the same - since we only had two pilots per aircraft ours is just listed as PIC or SIC.ohhhhhh good one Ian. He could, if he was a CFI-M.
Ian, in the Army how did you all log time? We used do it by 1st/2nd pilot, AirCraft CDR....
Did you instruct? Usually when I instructed I would log the whole flight as AC time, but only a small portion of it as 1st pilot time. The student would log most of the 1st pilot time. So I had to go back through my logbook and translate everything over.Mostly the same - since we only had two pilots per aircraft ours is just listed as PIC or SIC.
No - 99% of Army instructors are Warrant Officers. I tried to beg and and plead to go to IP school anyway but was denied heavily.Did you instruct? Usually when I instructed I would log the whole flight as AC time, but only a small portion of it as 1st pilot time. The student would log most of the 1st pilot time. So I had to go back through my logbook and translate everything over.
We would have Mission Commanders, but they could be NFO's (not pilots). Interesting how everyone does it different. The Navy is now starting the WO gig. Some of my buds down at CENTCOM were Army helo guys.No - 99% of Army instructors are Warrant Officers. I tried to beg and and plead to go to IP school anyway but was denied heavily.
In the Army the PIC is always the "Aircraft Commander." If an IP is flying the other guy always logs SIC, even if he is PIC qualified. If two rated PICs are flying together one is always designated as the PIC by the commander, and the other PIC logs SIC.
We did have something called an "Air Mission Commander" who is someone in command of an entire flight for a mission. That time isn't loggable of course, and the AMC could be a PIC, SIC, or even a jumpseater somewhere in the flight.
Though it's not a huge deal at this stage of the game for you, the difference won't be found in your logbook, it could be talked about during an interview. In just a few simple questions an interviewer can determine that you were not responsible for the plane and that you were simply building time. No biggie for now, but there's a difference.
Just like the PPL working on their instrument logging sole manipulator knows who is really in charge of the aircraft, you know who is actually in command of that twotter.
And here's a question just to spice things up: In this part 91 op where you are not a required crewmember, when you are on the controls is the other guy logging time?
Make sure it's good beer.
To answer the first question, sure, i can imagine it may be asked about, and I would have absolutely no shame and problem describing the situation and saying I was utilizing this experience to build hours, learn about multi turbine operations, and make an entry into the profession with low hours. I don't feel theres anything shameful or 'less desirable' about my motives...and if an employer wanted to haggle over a hundred hours very early in my career (which were legitimate experience-builders) then I doubt I would want to work for them anyhow.
To answer the first question, sure, i can imagine it may be asked about, and I would have absolutely no shame and problem describing the situation and saying I was utilizing this experience to build hours, learn about multi turbine operations, and make an entry into the profession with low hours. I don't feel theres anything shameful or 'less desirable' about my motives...and if an employer wanted to haggle over a hundred hours very early in my career (which were legitimate experience-builders) then I doubt I would want to work for them anyhow.