New 1500 / ATP for 121 Rule, details?

Hacker15e said:
Which part is scary? That the applicant has 2000TT and only 107 of that is PIC, or that AmeriFright won't consider an applicant with that little PIC time?
Click to expand...

Why AmeriFright? I've heard a lot of great things about the company. Am I reading this wrong, or is there a negative stigma about AMF here? I'm asking because I'm considering a job with with them!
 
Amflight isn't a bad way to go. A lot of guys go there to build time/experience in all their equipment and it opens doors to charter/other 135 gigs etc. Its not a bad company to have on your resume.
 
Bumblebee said:
are you talking basic PIC time? I am confused, do we have people flying airlines with less that 250 total PIC time in anything?
Click to expand...

Depending who runs the numbers Eagle has any where from 200 to 700 FOs without 250 hours PIC.

Blackhawk said:
Not an issue.
4) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least

Maybe some inspectors interpret this differently, but most have counted the 121 SIC time as long as the pilot is upgrading at his/her airline.
Click to expand...

To bad for Eagle FOs the DFW FSDO and AMR don't count SIC time. No 250 PIC no upgrade.
 
trafficinsight said:
I'm not convinced pay will go up.
Click to expand...

That is fine. If there are less pilots there will be a smaller amount of RJ roaming the skies. As a result the majors will need to increase their flying. This is assuming scope doesn't go the way of the dodo.
 
Gonzo said:
Depending who runs the numbers Eagle has any where from 200 to 700 FOs without 250 hours PIC.



To bad for Eagle FOs the DFW FSDO and AMR don't count SIC time. No 250 PIC no upgrade.
Click to expand...

Then they are making up their own rules. In addition to what I cited you have 61.51 under which an SIC may log that time he/she is sole manipulator of the controls as PIC. Also as a reference the Carpenter Letter in the FAAs legal interpretation section dated February 1999.
 
Blackhawk said:
Then they are making up their own rules. In addition to what I cited you have 61.51 under which an SIC may log that time he/she is sole manipulator of the controls as PIC. Also as a reference the Carpenter Letter in the FAAs legal interpretation section dated February 1999.
Click to expand...
Can you post that letter?
 
SteveC said:
Don't they need to be type rated too?
Click to expand...

I'm with SteveC here. You have to be typed if the plane is over 12,500 lbs to log sole manipulator PIC time when acting as SIC. Then again, some people will tell you that an aircraft certified for flight with a two man crew doesn't really have a "sole manipulator." I tend to go with the second interpretation, but I'm not the FAA. Either way, it jiust looks like a numbers game to get around a loophole. You also have to go with a company's definition of PIC time as well. The company manuals have to go through an FAA approval process, and if the company manual says the PIC is the person that signs for the aircraft (which is what our's says), you'll have a hard time explaining how you logged PIC time as an FO. Hell, under the company manuals, I couldn't even log PIC time as a CA during upgrade OE. Why? The Check Airman in the right seat was the one technically responsible for the aircraft. They even sign the releases until you're done with OE.

We've got several guys at 9E that upgraded with less than 250 PIC time. Guess what? No Canada trips as CAs for them. Makes it hell on scheduling while they're on reserve. "Oh, this guy is setting ready reserve in JFK. Give him the YUL out and back....wait, nevermind. He doesn't have the PIC time for it." Now they need to do a three way swap normally with other CAs just to get the out and back covered. Gets really hairy when the WX goes down and some of those guys are also high mins.
 
ManleyD said:
Why AmeriFright? I've heard a lot of great things about the company. Am I reading this wrong, or is there a negative stigma about AMF here? I'm asking because I'm considering a job with with them!
Click to expand...

Because all the guy/gal has ever done is sit in an airplane with two people. Flying an airplane single pilot can be very demanding. Imagine you have lost an engine, you are in it, picking up ice, and trying to do the whole thing all by yourself.

Edit to add: Having the extra set of eyes in the cockpit can reduce the risk of error immensily when things are going right. Just having someone there to raise and lower the gear (usually my job in a 2 pilot airplane) allows one to focus entirley on the flying.
 
ManleyD said:
Why AmeriFright? I've heard a lot of great things about the company. Am I reading this wrong, or is there a negative stigma about AMF here? I'm asking because I'm considering a job with with them!
Click to expand...


It's just a joke, at least from my perspective as an outsider. I picked that nickname up quite a long time ago (early 90s) when I was a line service guy. AMF airplanes were always ratty and looked like they were the typical "rode hard and put away wet". In addition, listening to the pilots tell stories of the types of flying they did (and having those stories wrapped up in an aura of, "can you believe the company has me do this kinda stuff"??) made it sound like the place was just a wee bit shady. As a young pilot, they didn't exactly instill confidence it AMF being a completely safe and sane operation.

Of course, now in retrospect I realize that tons of "working airplanes" look like crap, and that doesn't necessarily have any relation to their mechanical condition. I also realize that a young freight dog is going to naturally tell his stories to a line service dude with a bit of 'wild west' spin to them and bravado just to make it sound interesting.

Never worked for 'em, so I couldn't tell ya if it's an accurate perception for someone who flies there.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Can you be considered the sole manipulator of the controls in a 2 crew situation where the airplane requires 2 pilots to operate?
Click to expand...

According to the FAA and the Carpenter letter, yes. The link I posted is not correct. The file is in Word format so I can't post it, but if you google FAA Legal Interpretations you can get to the website. Then in the search put 1999 as the year and Carpenter as the search string and it will come up.

"Additionally, he has passed the competency checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. You ask whether the SIC can log PIC time for that portion of the flight in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls for the flight. The answer is yes."

 
Is this the one you're talking about:

Lastly, you present the following scenario: under a Part 121 operation the air carrier has designated a pilot and a copilot as required by FAR 121.385(c). The pilot is the authorized PIC and the copilot is the authorized SIC. The PIC is also the company check airman. During the course of the flight, the SIC is the sole manipulator of the controls for the flight. Additionally, he has passed the competency checks required for Part 121 operations, at least as SIC. You ask whether the SIC can log PIC time for that portion of the flight in which he is the sole manipulator of the controls for the flight. The answer is yes.
Click to expand...

Then you have to keep reading.....

The pilot who is the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft for which the pilot is rated may also log that flight as PIC.
Click to expand...

Seems like even Mr. Carpenter thinks you at least need to be type rated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top