Logging Turbine PIC

[CFIse]

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. 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]

Originally Posted by dakovich

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]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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.

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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]

Originally Posted by CFIse

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]

Originally Posted by kellwolf

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

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?

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

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]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

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.

<>

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]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by SteveC

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.

[ananoman]

Originally Posted by 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

I think the important thing in all this, is to keep the time in a seperate column. If you make a 'Part 61 PIC' column in your log book and don't use it on an airline application, I don't see what their problem is. If someone does ask, all you should have to do is explain that it is legal and is often accepted in the corporate world and for insurance purposes. If they still want to argue, that is their problem.

As for the people with CL65 type ratings from some of the flight schools, they will have a limitation that they cannot serve as pilot in command on the back of their license. If you do not meet certain criteria, then you have to get either 15 or 25 hrs of operating experience under a qualified PIC 'in the seat normally occupied by the PIC' and have them sign your log book. Then you get to do an 8710 and go visit the FSDO to get the restriction removed. For any of the students getting these types, they would need the full 25hrs. Since they don't let you fly from the right seat as an FO at the airlines, this would probably be hard to accomplish.

[seagull]

For the record, Tgrayson is 100% correct. If you don't think so, you need to READ what he is writing here.

It is 100% legal to log the time as PIC.

It is also 100% stupid to do so if you plan on using that time for an interview in the future.

The two are COMPLETELY separate issues. You could do a "part 61 PIC" column if it amuses you, but what's the point?

This is the EXACT reason why the FedEx mins state explicitly:

"Note: PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls. "

The majors aren't dumb. I am fairly certain that nobody out my company cares what you put in your logbook, what we care is what you say you have on your application based on the criteria WE place on it. We help you by telling out what that criteria is, but you'd do well to use that for other airlines as well, as it is a lot better to be told that you were too conservative than the converse!

However, I will say again, without any qualification, Tgrayson is giving you correct information!

[falconvalley]

I think some of you were arguing about a very broad topic and sometimes about slightly different scenarios. The only thing I wonder about is 91 legs in a 135 operation. Case in point-

An Airnet SIC in the Baron will reposition aircraft, part 91. With no one else in the airplane, they better be logging PIC. So how different is a 91 leg in a King Air 200? You don't have to know every single darn system in the airplane!! Just be honest in the interview. You log PIC the first time you fly a light single after Private. Why not in a King Air?

If you have 10 hours in the right seat of the King Air 200 and 2 hours in the left seat, PIC, you should know the basics: what kind of engines, shaft horse power, temp and torque limits, speeds, how the gear and flaps work, how to close and check the door. Easy stuff.

But if you have 500 hours in the right seat and 50 PIC, you'd better have intimate knowledge of the airplane. If you don't, that time won't be taken seriously. There's a delicate balance between good quality SIC time and worthless, just sitting there time.

[E_Dawg]

Who the hell are you logging it for?? If it's for an interview, you're going to be laughed out of the room. If it's just for yourself and it's in the logbook, you'll still look like a tard.

[Kingairer]

Log it has Single Engine Copter

[ananoman]

Originally Posted by seagull

The two are COMPLETELY separate issues. You could do a "part 61 PIC" column if it amuses you, but what's the point?

The point is, that if you are not 121, you may need those totals for insurance purposes or to upgrade to Captain, or to get a better job. If you do not keep track of this as you are doing it, it is almost impossible to remember what legs you flew, etc. at a later time. So having that extra column can come in handy.

I don't see anyone here advocating putting it on an airline application when an employer wants to know how much PIC you have. But if you are not 121, not logging the time could hurt you in the future.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by seagull

Tgrayson is giving you correct information!

Thank you. Where do I send the $5?

[seagull]

Originally Posted by ananoman

The point is, that if you are not 121, you may need those totals for insurance purposes or to upgrade to Captain, or to get a better job. If you do not keep track of this as you are doing it, it is almost impossible to remember what legs you flew, etc. at a later time. So having that extra column can come in handy.

I don't see anyone here advocating putting it on an airline application when an employer wants to know how much PIC you have. But if you are not 121, not logging the time could hurt you in the future.

I have no argument with this at all, in fact, I agree completely and everyone can consider this a modification to what ever in the heck I wrote before (I TOLD you I had a couple of brewski's first!)

[seagull]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Thank you. Where do I send the $5?

We'll just extract in in beer. We need to go out and hit the town sometime, by the way!

[Champcar]

Whats different between the person in the left seat and right seat? Other than the fact the one has another stripe, a higher senority number, and a tiller?

If one is rated, is at the controlls, and is making the flying decisions then whats the big deal?

Its no different than when I am with my instructor. Sure he is more qualified and has more time than me, but I still get to log PIC cause I am flying.

[dakovich]

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

Who the hell are you logging it for?? If it's for an interview, you're going to be laughed out of the room. If it's just for yourself and it's in the logbook, you'll still look like a tard.

tard...awesome. really though, i asked because i have no clue. 61/91 rules are pretty straight forward to me, but then you step away from the black and white of the FARs and into trying to make this flying thing a career.... there's a big difference between what the "great book" tells you you can do, and what are, in reality, acceptable practices throughout the profession. so, to use you're word, i don't want to look like a Tard.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by Champcar

Whats different between the person in the left seat and right seat? Other than the fact the one has another stripe, a higher senority number, and a tiller?

If one is rated, is at the controlls, and is making the flying decisions then whats the big deal?

Its no different than when I am with my instructor. Sure he is more qualified and has more time than me, but I still get to log PIC cause I am flying.

You're asking the difference under the regulation for logging or the difference to an interviewer?