PIC / SIC

IndianaPilot

IndianaPilot

Well-Known Member
I was wondering about how a pilot can log PIC time in an airplane that has another PIC on board. For example...a private pilot flying left seat in a cessna....and an instructor in the right seat...on a cross country....and the private pilot is allowed to log the PIC time...and the instructor does also. Or some of the freight/mail operations...that have two crewmembers on a light twin...and the junior pilot logs PIC time. Whats the ins/outs/legalities of this ? Does that really count as PIC time, and will it be recognized as PIC time ? Reason I ask....i'm starting the program at ATP, and need to meet their minimums to begin. So i'm gonna do a time build....a few cross country flights in a 172....with an instructor in the right seat....and i'm gonna log PIC time. Does this sound right ? I mean i'll be flying the airplane and manipulating the controls...but i wont truly be the PIC in the aircraft. I'm worried that in the future, on a resume, a potential employer might frown upon this.
 
Thanks a lot midlife....great info ! That answers my question. So with this all being known, how does a potential employer break it down ? When you give them your logbook with lets say.....1000 PIC....how do they know if its acting or logging ? And, can this hurt you in any way ?
 
When you and another pilot both log PIC (one as safety pilot) I believe one or both has to make an entry regarding who is the safety pilot, etc. When I was logging safety pilot time, I had a separate logbook column for it to keep track of it. At my interview with ExpressJet, they made it clear that they were looking for questionable SIC time and PIC time in aircraft we weren't trained in (like King Air SIC, PIC in a Citation,etc). But some PIC logged as safety pilot was fine, I probably have 40 hours of safety pilot time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Does that really count as PIC time?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes

[ QUOTE ]
…will it be recognized as PIC time?

[/ QUOTE ]No

[ QUOTE ]
....a few cross country flights in a 172....with an instructor in the right seat....and i'm gonna log PIC time…I mean i'll be flying the airplane and manipulating the controls...but i wont truly be the PIC in the aircraft. I'm worried that in the future, on a resume, a potential employer might frown upon this.

[/ QUOTE ]
For your example, yes that is legitimate PIC time.

[ QUOTE ]
When you give them your logbook with lets say.....1000 PIC....how do they know if its acting or logging? And, can this hurt you in any way?

[/ QUOTE ]
From a “training” standpoint it will not hurt you. From an an employee standpoint, possibly.

Many times, it is pretty easy to tell when someone is “embellishing” the ACTING PIC time. Do you have excessive PIC time that is also in the “dual received” block?
Did your multi PIC time suddenly jump from PA-44 to LR-31? (With not training noted).
Many other “clues” can make it very obvious. And if all else fails, when you take a sim/aircraft eval, your airman ship may not equate to your “logged” experience.

[ QUOTE ]
what PIC time do you think they would frown upon? in other words....it wouldnt count

[/ QUOTE ]
King Air/Citation time with no high alt endorsement, no training time, no log of 3 t/o and landings before time commenced. PIC time logged in advanced a/c with “0” SIC time. In the corporate world, it is a very small world. The employers you are talking to probably have working knowledge of your “friend with the CJ1.” He will likely know that he is single pilot rated and that you’re logged SIC/PIC time is bogus.
 
cool captain thanks
smile.gif
i just wanna make sure i follow the right path...and not find out a few years down the line...that i really dont truly have the hours i need...when i thought i was ready to go.
 
Also remember some airlines look at PIC time differently. Some don't consider instructor time as PIC (there goes most of mine) and others don't consider anything PIC unless you signed for the aircraft. By the time you are looking for those jobs, you will have a lot of time anyway, and will know what you need.

My airline is known for scrutinizing logged time at the interview, but just keep it honest, ensure it all adds up, leave nothing in doubt and you will be fine. If you get to fly a King Air, Citation, MU-2, etc I'd advise you to just not log it at all, and enjoy the experience. Looks fishy later on.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you get to fly a King Air, Citation, MU-2, etc I'd advise you to just not log it at all, and enjoy the experience. Looks fishy later on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say if you plan on logging it, be ready to back it up. If it's a King Air 90 or other single pilot op, be sure to have a 135 SIC check-out somewhere to back that up. If it's Part 91, be sure to note that you were sole manipulator or something else. Any jet time will take some extra stuff since you probably won't have a type, but I THINK (and everyone else correct me if I'm wrong on this), you can log Citation, Lear, etc as SIC if certified for two pilot ops under Part 91. Just because it might look fishy, don't automatically rule out logging it. Just be ready to defend it in an interview with honest answers. Now if it IS fishy, do yourself a favor and don't log it.
 
yeah i'm gonna have to make sure i sit down with the instructor at ATP to make sure i have this straight and not end up screwing myself. i mean...like i said..i'm gonna be loggin PIC time with either another instructor or another student on board the airplane. when i graduate..i'll have 140 multi PIC logged...but never once will i fly by myself. so can these hours truly count, or not ?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you get to fly a King Air, Citation, MU-2, etc I'd advise you to just not log it at all, and enjoy the experience. Looks fishy later on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say if you plan on logging it, be ready to back it up. If it's a King Air 90 or other single pilot op, be sure to have a 135 SIC check-out somewhere to back that up. If it's Part 91, be sure to note that you were sole manipulator or something else. Any jet time will take some extra stuff since you probably won't have a type, but I THINK (and everyone else correct me if I'm wrong on this), you can log Citation, Lear, etc as SIC if certified for two pilot ops under Part 91. Just because it might look fishy, don't automatically rule out logging it. Just be ready to defend it in an interview with honest answers. Now if it IS fishy, do yourself a favor and don't log it.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're trained and have a 135 checkout, no problem. If you log some PIC/SIC in a Citation, Lear etc, be ready to answer some specific systems questions-they are looking to see if you received training, or just rode along.
 
[ QUOTE ]
so can these hours truly count, or not ?

[/ QUOTE ]They truly count as PIC for all =FAA= purposes.

But a potential employer is not the FAA. Do you understand why a potential employer might be more interested in your experience in command of flights (truly "acting" as PIC) than whether your uncle let you handle the control of his Malibu for a hour enroute (legitimately "logging PIC) when you only other time was in a 152?

But that difference shouldn't lead to a difference in legitimate logging to show legal FAA qualification for ratings, certificates, currency, and qualification. It should lead to a difference in how you present the information to a prospective employer. That difference leads many pilots to have two PIC columns - one to record "61.51 PIC" (counts for FAA requirements and that I meet the legal requirements for a job) and the other to record "Part 1 PIC" (something I want to show an employer to prove I am experienced enough for the job).

Similar situation comes up with counting cross country time. Those jaunts to the airport 10 NM way from home base count as cross country to show that you meet the minimum cross country requirements for a Part 135 position; but you'd hardly point to theme during an interview saying, "Oh I have lots of valuable cross country time"
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you log some PIC/SIC in a Citation, Lear etc, be ready to answer some specific systems questions-they are looking to see if you received training, or just rode along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you're honest about it, you could get away with just talking about how the plane handled, power settings, etc. I wouldn't expect anyone to know systems with only an hour or two of flight time. Otherwise, we might as well not even log discovery flights or the first few lessons in a 172. Now, if you come off as being god's gift to turbine with 1.4 in a Citation I, then be prepared to be sent packing.
 
Ok, one little problem with this discussion is; some of you are putting airplanes like Citation I and Learjet together. Totally different and I'll tell you why. While certain Citation 500 series can and are often flown single pilot, Learjet's are not. Learjet's require two pilots and always have. Therefore, someone better know the systems of the Learjet (Challenger, Astra, Gulfstream, etc., basically any two pilot aircraft) when asked, because one is required to know these things, in detail, in order to act as SIC. Apples and Oranges.

A question; Why do some argue with or disagree with a statement of fact or viable opinion made by a professional or someone with extensive experience, when they have none or very little. Especially those who are asking the questions. Personally, I haven't posted nearly as much lately because I'm sick of answering a direct or indirect question for that matter, just to receive an unhappy or unappreciative reply because one doesn't like the answer. It's not that big of deal to me, I guess I just get irritated when someone who knows nothing or very little about something argues or constantly gives bad or incorrect information to others.

Ok, I'm done..............whew, that feels better.
grin.gif


[/end rant\]
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, one little problem with this discussion is; some of you are putting airplanes like Citation I and Learjet together.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is directed at me, my apologies, my mistake.

[ QUOTE ]

A question; Why do some argue with or disagree with a statement of fact or viable opinion made by a professional or someone with extensive experience, when they have none or very little. Especially those who are asking the questions. Personally, I haven't posted nearly as much lately because I'm sick of answering a direct or indirect question for that matter, just to receive an unhappy or unappreciative reply because one doesn't like the answer. It's not that big of deal to me, I guess I just get irritated when someone who knows nothing or very little about something argues or constantly gives bad or incorrect information to others.



[/ QUOTE ]

And if this is also directed at me, you're entitled to your own opinion. Post here at your own risk!
 
[ QUOTE ]
When you give them your logbook with lets say.....1000 PIC....how do they know if its acting or logging ?

[/ QUOTE ]Looking back on the direction the discussion took, I'm not sure that anyone answered this part.

To the extent that it's an issue, you tell them. It's a =presentation= issue not an FAA logging issue.

What some pilots do is break down their flight time into additional non-standard categories. You've probably seen pilots who track retract time in their logbooks - no FAA reason for it, but useful information for insurance and other purposes.

Same thing here. Some pilots add a column to their logbooks they call "Part 1 PIC" - to reflect that their are only entering time that they were =acting= as PIC with ultimate responsibility for the flight.
 
My comments weren't directed at anyone in particular. I would've addressed you if my comments were just for you.
[ QUOTE ]
Post here at your own risk!

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean by this.
 
[ QUOTE ]
My comments weren't directed at anyone in particular. I would've addressed you if my comments were just for you.
[ QUOTE ]
Post here at your own risk!

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean by this.

[/ QUOTE ]What did I do?
 
Not you....Read above!
smile.gif


I should have been more clear. I was replying and referring to pscraig.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top