Logging Turbine PIC

[jtrain609]

I really can't believe we're having this discussion.

You're right, he might not, but my next employer will sure as heck wonder how I was logging PIC time on a 135 run without having part 135 PIC minimums (I have 650 hours).

[SteveC]

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.

[Flysher]

Ive done this same sorta thing before in a Kingair 200, but I never logged the time. Someone once told me never to log time in anything that I couldnt explain all the systems in it, because if its in your logbook its fair game for questioning.

Of course if you went to simuflite im guessin you could answer some questions

[mikecweb]

How can you log SIC in an aircraft that doesn't require two pilots?
I was an "SIC" at Airnet. I logged total time when not the sole manipulator and PIC when I was at the controls. That time is worthless to any future operator that looks at PIC time as only valid if you sign for the aircraft.
But it doesn't matter if its 91 or 135. Regardless you aren't going to sign for the aircraft so your PIC time is with an "*" next to it.
But I honestly don't see how you could log SIC time. A Navajo doesn't require two pilots?

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

I really can't believe we're having this discussion.

You're right, he might not, but my next employer will sure as heck wonder how I was logging PIC time on a 135 run without having part 135 PIC minimums (I have 650 hours).

You've chosen not to log PIC time on Part 135 legs when the regulations are perfectly clear that you COULD log that time. That's your choice. Others will choose otherwise. You'll have just as hard a time at an interview when you present your logbooks and get asked "you could have logged this time as PIC, why didn't you?". Almost any answer you give will tag you as "not that smart" which isn't the way I'd like to end up in an interview.

You seem to be concerned that companies you apply at will not be able to distinguish between PIC time logged in accordance with the FARs and PIC time where the person logging the time acted as PIC. Believe me - aviation companies have been around this one multiple times. If they WANT to know your PIC time when you were ACTING as PIC they'll ask - otherwise they won't.

[jtrain609]

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.

If your ops specs require two pilots, or can designate your flight as requiring two pilots then you are hence required to have an SIC.

[Flysher]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

How can you log SIC in an aircraft that doesn't require two pilots?
I was an "SIC" at Airnet. I logged total time when not the sole manipulator and PIC when I was at the controls. That time is worthless to any future operator that looks at PIC time as only valid if you sign for the aircraft.
But it doesn't matter if its 91 or 135. Regardless you aren't going to sign for the aircraft so your PIC time is with an "*" next to it.
But I honestly don't see how you could log SIC time. A Navajo doesn't require two pilots?

Actually mike I believe that if its 135 and theres passengers on board you are required to have an SIC ( I could be wrong though, these countless nights on standby are making me dumb )

Dont forget super low takeoffs also. Plus I think most companies write it into there ops specs as a safety factor so if its in there, its legit to log.

[Doug Taylor]

Don't log part-135 PIC because you're not.

If you don't meet the part-135 mins and have not accomplished a part-135 PIC checkride with the FAA, you may not act as PIC of an aircraft flying under that part.

B767Driver was a check airman for a company that flew 135 and transitioned to 121 at a later date, I'll make sure he sees the thread and offers his insight because he's got first hand experience.

Airlines want butts in seats so they might be liable to tell you anything to staff the right seat. It's all about the FARs and the Opspecs of the company in question.

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by jfleisher

Actually mike I believe that if its 135 and theres passengers on board you are required to have an SIC ( I could be wrong though, these countless nights on standby are making me dumb )

Dont forget super low takeoffs also. Plus I think most companies write it into there ops specs as a safety factor so if its in there, its legit to log.

Yeah those are all cases. But if you aren't PAX or have it in your OP Specs you are either logging PIC or not. No SIC.
I miss the breakroom. Now I just sit on the couch and drink all day.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

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.

The reason you're having a hard time accepting this is that you have constructed your own definition of logging PIC which doesn't match the regulations. We're offering you an opportunity to gain a higher level of knowledge, but you'll have to drop your preconceptions first.

Originally Posted by jtrain609

Ya'll keep talking about the difference between acting as and operating the controls, and that's a bunch of BS.

The difference between the two has been well documented for a long time by the FAA. There are tons of interpretations from the General Counsel's Office endorsing the concept, so it's not BS as far as the FAA is concerned.

If you disagree, then please offer some evidence to support your point of view. You claimed that Part 135 regulations forbade logging of PIC time in this situation, but you have provided no references in support of that contention. I don't believe that such references exist. On the other hand, I have cited the appropriate regulation (61.51) and given you a letter of interp from the FAA. Please explain why these are insufficient for you.

[ricecakecm]

For 135 passenger carrying operations, you are required to have 2 qualified pilots for IFR flights, unless you have the OpSpec authorizing the use of an auto-pilot in lieu of a second in command. The PIC must also be checked on the use of the auto-pilot every 12 months in order to use that OpSpec. That being said, the company may still assign 2 pilots to any flight and as long as you've had an SIC checkride, you can log SIC under 135.

My company operates 2 different types of single pilot airplanes, but sometimes due to customer request or a day with over 8 hours of flying, we assign a second captain to the flight (we don't have SIC's). In cases like this, one pilot logs PIC and one SIC, usually based on if they're the PF or PNF.

Now, on a Part 91 leg, you can log PIC as long as you meet the requirements to log it under Part 91 and/or Part 61. However, logging PIC and acting as PIC are two different things that have been discussed before, so I won't go into that.

Chris
A Part 135 Check Airman.

[Flysher]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Yeah those are all cases. But if you aren't PAX or have it in your OP Specs you are either logging PIC or not. No SIC.
I miss the breakroom. Now I just sit on the couch and drink all day.

Yea its crazy here now, last week we had 17 guys in there at one point. They more or less made the sort at city meet mandatory now for pilots, I think they just laid off the real workers down there so they could save money by using us

[jtrain609]

Tell ya what, I'm outta this one.

Later.

[kellwolf]

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."

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by ricecakecm

Now, on a Part 91 leg, you can log PIC as long as you meet the requirements to log it under Part 91 and/or Part 61.

And on the 135 leg as well, as indicated by Part 61.51 and the letter of interpretation I offered from the FAA's General Counsel's Office. Neither Part 91 nor 135 specify the requirements to log PIC time.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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?

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

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]

Originally Posted by SteveC

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

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]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

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]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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?