Logging PDPIC

cardsfan05

cardsfan05

Well-Known Member
As a student, I've been logging PDPIC and I'm in the process of transferring my logbook onto a digital format. I've heard that airlines don't care for PDPIC time. Is there any truth to that, or should I continue logging dual flights as PIC?

Thanks!
 
cardsfan05 said:
As a student, I've been logging PDPIC and I'm in the process of transferring my logbook onto a digital format. I've heard that airlines don't care for PDPIC time. Is there any truth to that, or should I continue logging dual flights as PIC?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

What is PDPIC? I have been around for a long time but never heard that. Are you a student pilot?
 
cardsfan05 said:
As a student, I've been logging PDPIC and I'm in the process of transferring my logbook onto a digital format. I've heard that airlines don't care for PDPIC time. Is there any truth to that, or should I continue logging dual flights as PIC?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Just keep a separate column in your logbook for it. Keep sole manipulator/ supervised solo time seperate from time where you were in charge of the plane. All that “soft” PIC time is useful for certificates and ratings and that’s about it. When it comes time to apply for an airline, only include time you were in charge of the aircraft as PIC time on the application.
 
MikeFavinger said:
Just keep a separate column in your logbook for it. Keep sole manipulator/ supervised solo time seperate from time where you were in charge of the plane. All that “soft” PIC time is useful for certificates and ratings and that’s about it. When it comes time to apply for an airline, only include time you were in charge of the aircraft as PIC time on the application.
Click to expand...
This, except for one thing. It is not "soft PIC" time. If I understand the question, it is not PIC of any kind. So, keep it separate. That's not just for the airlines.

If this is the most common situation - your commercial multi solo requirements were met by "performing the duties of PIC" with an instructor on board, and you didn't already have a private multi rating - it is not countable as PIC time even under the FAA's rules.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
This, except for one thing. It is not "soft PIC" time. If I understand the question, it is not PIC of any kind. So, keep it separate. That's not just for the airlines.

If this is the most common situation - your commercial multi solo requirements were met by "performing the duties of PIC" with an instructor on board, and you didn't already have a private multi rating - it is not countable as PIC time even under the FAA's rules.
Click to expand...

Good point - I missed that. I don’t believe there was even such a thing as "performing the duties of PIC with an instructor on board” when I got my ratings.
 
The Supercived PIC for multi became a thing because no MEI in their right mind is going to endorse a student to solo in a ME. At least I never would/will.
 
CUTigerPilot said:
The Supercived PIC for multi became a thing because no MEI in their right mind is going to endorse a student to solo in a ME. At least I never would/will.
Click to expand...

Interesting. All my required ME solo time was genuinely solo time. Guess times have changed.
 
CUTigerPilot said:
The Supercived PIC for multi became a thing because no MEI in their right mind is going to endorse a student to solo in a ME. At least I never would/will.
Click to expand...

Yet endorsing them for a checkride where they will likely be PIC, with *passengers*, possibly 90 minutes later is somehow any different? I think it was driven more by insurance companies that MEIs...
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Yet endorsing them for a checkride where they will likely be PIC, with *passengers*, possibly 90 minutes later is somehow any different? I think it was driven more by insurance companies that MEIs...
Click to expand...
Yup.... started with the multi "supervised solo xcountries" due to insurance requirements, went on to "supervised solo xcountries" in a damn 172.
Then there is also legit (from FAA perspective) timebuilding, when one guy drives from point A to point B under the hood (let's say 1.4 xc pic time, 1.2 sim imc, 1 landing), while the other guy serves as a safety pilot (1.2 pic, no xc due to no landing) and they reverse roles on the way back

Legitimate? Yup. Useful?....
giphy (1).gif
 
BigZ said:
Then there is also legit (from FAA perspective) timebuilding, when one guy drives from point A to point B under the hood (let's say 1.4 xc pic time, 1.2 sim imc, 1 landing), while the other guy serves as a safety pilot (1.2 pic, no xc due to no landing) and they reverse roles on the way back

Legitimate? Yup. Useful?....
Click to expand...

Well, pilots need experience actually flying an airplane by instruments. Would it be better if they spent that time actually flying approaches in less than perfect weather? Probably, but it is subjective, and it is hard to make rules that way.

My personal opinion? New pilots with less than 500 hours are better off flying with someone else, and are certainly learning while they are doing so. I would have no problem with a special rule that they both log PIC, period, in those circumstances.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Yet endorsing them for a checkride where they will likely be PIC, with *passengers*, possibly 90 minutes later is somehow any different? I think it was driven more by insurance companies that MEIs...
Click to expand...
It was. The material from the FAA explaining the rule when it was first created indicates it was insurance driven. The same rationale was used when it was expanded to a few other ratings.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
My personal opinion? New pilots with less than 500 hours are better off flying with someone else, and are certainly learning while they are doing so. I would have no problem with a special rule that they both log PIC, period, in those circumstances.
Click to expand...
I don't see the FAA changing the rules to allow pilots who are not rated for the aircraft to log PIC flight time.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Well, pilots need experience actually flying an airplane by instruments. Would it be better if they spent that time actually flying approaches in less than perfect weather? Probably, but it is subjective, and it is hard to make rules that way.

My personal opinion? New pilots with less than 500 hours are better off flying with someone else, and are certainly learning while they are doing so. I would have no problem with a special rule that they both log PIC, period, in those circumstances.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do need that experience
But what good is a burger run repeated 40 times in fair wx (since you can't imc with a safety pilot)? Get a cfii in the right seat and go some place. I did 3-4 hr one way stints to visit friends and whatnot building that time. Actually crossed the fronts and stuff on the way.
In pursuit of gainz while keeping the risks to the minimum flight schools tend to dumb this stuff down to unreasonable
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Me either, but in the "timebuilding under hood" scenario, they are already rated.
Click to expand...
Oh, are you talking about a rated pilot logging PIC time when just sitting there in a friend's airplane as a passenger while the friend flies? Not as safety pilot or as any other required crewmember? I don't see that happening either. But I suspect I'm just being dense and not understanding what you mean by the (new) rule you would have no problem with.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Oh, are you talking about a rated pilot logging PIC time when just sitting there in a friend's airplane as a passenger while the friend flies? Not as safety pilot or as any other required crewmember? I don't see that happening either.
Click to expand...

Actually, if they are both low time rated pilots - exactly what I mean. There should be more incentive to go fly, and it should count for something. "Being under the hood" shouldn't really matter - in my 20 years of flying, my opinion is that it is a loophole that should be fixed. In the most obvious way -- by saying that low time pilots that are gaining experience should in fact be doing just that.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
My personal opinion? New pilots with less than 500 hours are better off flying with someone else, and are certainly learning while they are doing so. I would have no problem with a special rule that they both log PIC, period, in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

500 hours?? That’s 200 hours more than most beginning CFIs
 
thevideographer said:
500 hours?? That’s 200 hours more than most beginning CFIs
Click to expand...

I have a colleague that I couldn't take on as a ME student because my plate was completely full. He went to the flight school and picked up a newb instructor. It was a very weird experience for him when the MEI wouldn't punch through some actual IMC in a twin outfitted with G430W and G5 HSI. Turns out my friend had more time in IMC than the instructor had total time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top