Logging Turbine PIC

[tgrayson]

Um, so according to this thread, the guys in my class with CRJ types can log PIC as FOs? I don't think so. Be kinda interesting at that CAL interview:

So you're basing what you believe on what other people laugh at, rather than facts and evidence?

Yes, if you have the CRJ type, you can log PIC time when acting as the sole manipulator, based on 61.51. Now, when you interview for the majors, they will probably only be interested in the time when you acted as PIC, so the type probably wouldn't do you much good.

But there were some FO's at Pinnacle from Gulfstream who could have used this PIC time, weren't there?

 

[derg]

So you're basing what you believe on what other people laugh at, rather than facts and evidence?

Yes, if you have the CRJ type, you can log PIC time when acting as the sole manipulator, based on 61.51.

For the love of civilian pilots around the world, please do not log PIC on a CRJ at a part 121 scheduled carrier unless you've actually upgraded to captain.

Many majors already look at civilian logbooks with jaundiced eyes, why give them more fuel?

Yowza.

 

[Looking4Lower]

I have a seperate column in my logbook labeled "61 PIC" to distinguish between Part 1 PIC time and Part 61 "sole manipulator" PIC time. Some companies don't recognize the loggable "sole manipulator" PIC time, while others don't care.

:yeahthat:

Just make the distinction in your logbook, and when you are applying/interviewing you can use whatever time is appropriate for the situation.

I've never logged PIC time as a typed (jet) SIC on the controls during a 135 flight, though. One could argue against this point, but IMHO I would steer well clear of that can o' worms.

 

[tgrayson]

For the love of civilian pilots around the world, please do not log PIC on a CRJ at a part 121 scheduled carrier unless you've actually upgraded to captain.

It would be helpful for you to discriminate between what you can do and what you should do. If you're saying you cannot, then the facts contradict that. If you're saying you should not, then you may be right, at least in the context of majors. Many commuters, however, will be satisfied with any loggable PIC time.

It's important to know the truth before you decide how to use it.

 

[kellwolf]

So you're basing what you believe on what other people laugh at, rather than facts and evidence?

Yes, if you have the CRJ type, you can log PIC time when acting as the sole manipulator, based on 61.51. Now, when you interview for the majors, they will probably only be interested in the time when you acted as PIC, so the type probably wouldn't do you much good.

Just go ahead and try that one. Let me know how it works out for ya. Trust me, the above was sarcasm. I'm not basing my beliefs one iota on what you've thrown out on this thread. You've got pro pilots in both 135 and 121, a 135 check airman and a 135 instructor going against you right now. For my own personal use, if I were in the King Air, I'd be logging the empty legs as PIC and NOT the 135. Why? No 135 PIC checkout.

If you get to discussing the finer points of "acting" vs "logging" PIC in an interview, I'm guessing you'll be seeing the door fairly quickly. Just becuase you can log it on a technicality doesn't mean you should. While you're doing your HR interview and some CA is looking over your logbook, are you gonna go busting in there and say "Hang on, let me explain HOW I logged PIC in that?" Even if you've got two columns, my bet is they'll be a nice song and dance during the interview.

But there were some FO's at Pinnacle from Gulfstream who could have used this PIC time, weren't there?

Not sure how. They didn't have a type, either. The guys in my class that do have types are either from other airlines like Indy Air or bought them. Besides, PCL has some whack PIC exemption for guys from Gulfstream upgrading. They need total time, not PIC time. That can be found in the Ops Specs. The same ones that say there is only ONE PIC in the plane.

 

[mikecweb]

I only logged that time to satisfy my current employer. As far as trying to use that time later. I'm not going to try and push the issue.

Something I've always gone by... "Never log time that will lead to more questions then answers"

 

[SteveC]

This topic gets interesting around our shop, since all pilots are type rated and have current 135.293 and 135.297 checks, and we fly a combination of Part 135, Part 91, and part 91(k) flights. Only one pilot is designated as Captain for the flight yet we alternate flying duties.

Most of the pilots log PIC anytime they are at the controls (even if not designated by the company as PIC) since it is legal to do so based on Part 61 logging guidelines. I tend to play it conservatively since there are some (not all, but some) potential corporate employers out there that differentiate Part 1 PIC from Part 61 PIC time. Thus the "61 PIC" column in my logbook. I've got the bases covered either way.

Many corporate (and apparently some regional 121 carriers from what tgrayson says) don't differentiate between Part 1 and Part 61 PIC, so I am perfectly happy to have the additional turbine PIC time available for my resume when I can use it.

 

[CFIse]

Um, so according to this thread, the guys in my class with CRJ types can log PIC as FOs? I don't think so. Be kinda interesting at that CAL interview:

"Sir, how did you log PIC time when you weren't a Captain?"
"Uh, I had a type and it was my leg."

Which is perfectly legal - but CAL won't care, because on the application, JUST LIKE YOUR APPLICATION FOR PINNACLE - they asked for time logged as PIC when ACTING as PIC.

I don't see why everybody seems to think that people who employee pilots are airlines are all so stupid. They know perfectly well what the logging regulations are, they know perfectly well why they are in place, and they know perfectly well what information they wish to evaluate and they ask for that information when you apply.

Do not put anything in your logbook that cannot be legally logged, but other than that the people reviewing your logbook could give a rats rear end what you logged as long as it's legal. They may ask you about it, and if you explain it correctly they'll be perfectly happy. If you want to make up your own rules of logging, as long as they are legal as well, go for it, but to tell people who are logging their time perfectly legally under the Federal Aviation Regulations they are wrong is just, well, wrong.

 

[CFIse]

Even if you've got two columns, my bet is they'll be a nice song and dance during the interview.

That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it. By the time any airline lets you review candidates for hire you'll be much smarter and will have changed that opinion - I guarantee it.

 

[tgrayson]

I'm not basing my beliefs one iota on what you've thrown out on this thread. You've got pro pilots in both 135 and 121, a 135 check airman and a 135 instructor going against you right now.

That's sort of my point. I've given you the regulations and interpretations by the FAA, yet you choose to believe those who have no established expertise on the subject? No one else has given you one shred of evidence to back up their opinions. One guy even fled the discussion when asked to provide evidence or refute what I offered.

Puzzling. When I want to learn about a subject, I turn to the experts and ignore everyone else. The regulations and the FAA are the experts on this subject and they have spoken. Why do you not believe them?

 

[CFIse]

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.

Good faith has absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Aviation Regulations. If you can't accept that you're going to have no end of trouble with the rest of the regulations.

If your morals prevent you from logging time when manipulating the controls, so be it, but don't try and force your doubtful morals on the rest of us.

 

[SteveC]

just wondering everyones take on my situation. I'm flying SIC in a Kingair for a 135 company. My question is, can i log PIC turbine on dead legs when i am the sole manilpulator of the controls?? been to training at Simuflite for the Kingair (SIC only though), am multi-engine rated, and the aircraft is under 12500. i know i can only log SIC when we are carrying passangers under 135, but the empty 91 legs are the question.

By the way (going back to the original question) in my opinion you certainly may log PIC on the Part 91 legs. You are rated, you are trained in the aircraft, and you are sole manipulator = loggable.

(I presume that when you say "the aircraft is under 12500" you mean that the MGTOW is under 12,500, not that it is less than 12.5 for the flight in question, right? Which model King Air?)

 

[tgrayson]

Not sure how. They didn't have a type, either. The guys in my class that do have types are either from other airlines like Indy Air or bought them. Besides, PCL has some whack PIC exemption for guys from Gulfstream upgrading. They need total time, not PIC time. That

They need total time now, but I believe the original problem was that they needed PIC time that they weren't going to get. And I believe it was for insurance requirements. Pinnacle negotiated to allow them to substitute Total Time.

can be found in the Ops Specs. The same ones that say there is only ONE PIC in the plane.

No doubt it says that, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[kellwolf]

That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it. By the time any airline lets you review candidates for hire you'll be much smarter and will have changed that opinion - I guarantee it.

Um, last time I checked you were a Mesa FO. Did you become a check airman or an interview CA when I wasn't looking?

How many of those guys filling out applications are saying "Cool. I can log this as PIC time" then put it on an app as ACTING PIC. If you think that's not happening, then maybe I'm not the one who needs to be "much smarter."

But hey, while we're on it, what about this:

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command of an aircraft under IFR unless that person—

(2) Has had at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 500 hours of cross country flight time, 100 hours of night flight time, and 75 hours of actual or simulated instrument time at least 50 hours of which were in actual flight; and

If you meet the mins for 135 PIC, why are you in an SIC position?

 

[SteveC]

But hey, while we're on it, what about this:

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command of an aircraft under IFR unless that person—

(2) Has had at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 500 hours of cross country flight time, 100 hours of night flight time, and 75 hours of actual or simulated instrument time at least 50 hours of which were in actual flight; and

If you meet the mins for 135 PIC, why are you in an SIC position?

His question was about the empty legs, which can legally be flown Part 91. What area of the regs is your quote from?

 

[derg]

It would be helpful for you to discriminate between what you can do and what you should do. If you're saying you cannot, then the facts contradict that. If you're saying you should not, then you may be right, at least in the context of majors. Many commuters, however, will be satisfied with any loggable PIC time.

It's important to know the truth before you decide how to use it.

Remember, this is a career-oriented advice-based website.

From what I know of the hiring process, if you have CRJ FO as the most recent experience, never upgraded to captain and have logged a few thousand hours of PIC time in a CRJ because you previously obtained a type rating, you're going to be the topic of some "jovial" conversation.

And most of the airline's human resource departments talk, trust me on this. They don't necessarily officially share data, but believe you me, they're on a first name basis.

I've forwarded the scenario to my "Former Manager of Pilot Selection" that I turn to for the "Hard Questions" section of the main website for the straight poop.

I'll post it when/if he replies.

As much as the FAA cares, you can log whatever you want to log in your book, but when it comes to certification and how HR views it, that's another story entirely.

I wish I kept the old United application to reference their description of "pilot-in-command/aircraft commander" experience, but the airlines look at a very narrow definition of PIC time.

But more or less, if it's going to go on your application and you're not solely responsible for the aircraft and responsible for signing the release, I wouldn't claim the experience as PIC, legal or not, when applying for an airline.

I know if I was looking across the desk, asking a new applicant questions, I'd say "Ahh, never upgraded to captain at SkyJet, but you've got 2,000 hours of EMB-145 PIC under part 121... So, tell me about your FAA PIC route check during your IOE and what upgrade training at your scheduled carrier was like sir".

That's my advice.

 

[tgrayson]

I'll post it when/if he replies.

Please do. But I suspect all that he can tell you is what the hiring managers are looking for, not what the regulations allow.

I just spoke with a friend of mine, who's been through a number of commuter interviews. He says they never questioned his Part 135 time logged as PIC. All they cared about was whether the total number of hours was what they wanted and that the logbook pages were signed.

<<As much as the FAA cares, you can log whatever you want to log in your book, but when it comes to certification and how HR views it, that's another story entirely. >>

Yes, it is, but for the Part 61 ratings and certificates, the FAA uses the 61.51 definition. HR's are a different matter and probably vary.

 

[SteveC]

Remember, this is a career-oriented advice-based website.

From what I know of the hiring process, if you have CRJ FO as the most recent experience, never upgraded to captain and have logged a few thousand hours of PIC time in a CRJ because you previously obtained a type rating, you're going to be the topic of some "jovial" conversation.

And most of the airline's human resource departments talk, trust me on this. They don't necessarily officially share data, but believe you me, they're on a first name basis.

I've forwarded the scenario to my "Former Manager of Pilot Selection" that I turn to for the "Hard Questions" section of the main website for the straight poop.

I'll post it when/if he replies.

As much as the FAA cares, you can log whatever you want to log in your book, but when it comes to certification and how HR views it, that's another story entirely.

I wish I kept the old United application to reference their description of "pilot-in-command/aircraft commander" experience, but the airlines look at a very narrow definition of PIC time.

But more or less, if it's going to go on your application and you're not solely responsible for the aircraft and responsible for signing the release, I wouldn't claim the experience as PIC, legal or not, when applying for an airline.

I know if I was looking across the desk, asking a new applicant questions, I'd say "Ahh, never upgraded to captain at SkyJet, but you've got 2,000 hours of EMB-145 PIC under part 121... So, tell me about your FAA PIC route check during your IOE and what upgrade training at your scheduled carrier was like sir".

That's my advice.

Doug my friend, your airline bias is showing through (edit to add: sorry, *bias* isn't the right word - *perspective* is better).

tgrayson, CFIse, and myself are all talking about the legality of logging PIC time in a turbine aircraft that one is rated to fly, even though that person has not "signed" for the aircraft as PIC of record. It is our contention that logging that time is perfectly acceptable, and it is my further contention (can't speak for those guys on this part) that there are many operators in the 135 and 91 world that will accept that as legitimate turbine PIC. I understand, and agree (based on what you and other airline pukes are saying) that the major airlines may well laugh you out the door for presenting that turbine PIC time for consideration of employment with them, but that does not mean that it is illegal or even stupid to log, if you follow me.

Just got to remember that not all "careers" go to the airline side of the business.

:yar:

 

[dakovich]

wow, thanx for all the interest in the topic. As some of you might expect i'm personally concerned about the topic because i'm looking to put some applications in for a regional job very soon. and the big thing is i don't want to look like an ass. the whole idea that, "if you're not the captain signing for the plane then you're not PIC in any way" seems like the route to go. i don't want to put turbine PIC in my log if it's not deserved/respected at the airlines i may wish to apply to. i know i can log it in some circumstances (61, 91), but i'm looking more toward my future proffesional career. so whatever the ethics or comman practices are concerning the subject is really the main cocern. thanx again everyone

 

[kellwolf]

His question was about the empty legs, which can legally be flown Part 91. What area of the regs is your quote from?

Oh, I never questioned the empty legs. What I question is logging the 135 legs flown as PIC. See the above where someone said you CAN log PIC in the CRJ with a type under 121. I realize what I posted was from 135 regs. What I'm saying is on the 135/121 legs, you can't log them as PIC since you don't meet the PIC requirements under those parts (more than likely, esp if the Ops Specs say you need a PIC checkout). I never questioned that you can log the 91 legs as PIC as sole manipulator.