Right seat twotter time?
- Thread starter TXaviator
- Start date
tgrayson
New Member
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.
vheissu
Well-Known Member
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!
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
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:
mjg407
Well-Known Member
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.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Make sure it's good beer.
charlie1017
Well-Known Member
What about a private pilot with no instrument rating getting dual from a CFII in IMC?
Is the private pilot PIC time equally real as in legally responsible for the flight? Logging vs acting as PIC...BTW congrats on the free twin otter time. Awesome plane!
Ian_J
Hubschrauber Flieger
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?
Ian_J
Hubschrauber Flieger
Mostly the same - since we only had two pilots per aircraft ours is just listed as PIC or SIC.
mjg407
Well-Known Member
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.
Ian_J
Hubschrauber Flieger
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.
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.
mjg407
Well-Known Member
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.
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
To answer the last question, i doubt he is concerned about it (however I will be asking this when I speak with him to finalize arrangements on monday)...as he is the owner/operator of the twotter and has xyz thousand hours etc etc.
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.
I have a callback with this guy on Monday, I think I'm going to solidify my plans to move back to Austin and get a day job and do the twotter flying on the weekends for the experience. I'll let you guys know how it goes.
and yes, twotter is a great word.
TWOTTER.
TXaviator
Well-Known Member
Shiner Bock is legal tender in Texas, as I'm sure you know.
I recently had some excellent friends smuggle me a case. Ahhh the sweet taste of home.
mjg407
Well-Known Member
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I agree that for someone in your situation, this is a great deal. You'll be able to build some flight time, while you develop your other aviation credentials (CFI). Wroking your way up to say 350TT where you can fly a C-182 for a dropzone is great. Then you can get your CFI and start teaching with about 500TT.
You shouldn't have to make any apologies for taking this oportunity. Obviously you won't be doing this forever, but it's a great stepping stone. My first job was flying jumpers in a 182. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that flying jumpers is worthless time. It is actually a great way to develop your basic airmanship.
Ian_J
Hubschrauber Flieger
I hope you didn't misunderstand - I was not at all criticizing you for pursuing this. I certainly think you should and you are absolutely right - you should have no shame for building your experience. You're not paying for it, you're not working for free (since you aren't required), and you'll gain experience. Good on you!
All I was saying is there's a perceived difference in the PIC time you'll gain here. Like I said earlier, it's no biggie. The answers you provided to the mock interview questions are spot on in my opinion.
Best of luck with this pursuit.
