jtrain609

I'm a carnal, organic anagram.
Also, airlines are commonly explicit about exactly what they're asking for. Here is Southwest.

"PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls. For military personnel, Southwest Airlines will allow flight time logged as "Pilot in Command" (PIC) only if you are the Captain/Aircraft Commander, Evaluator, or Instructor Pilot. Primary time will only be considered PIC on a specific aircraft after an individual upgrades to Aircraft Commander n the appropriate aircraft. Time logged as "Other Time" will not be considered."

 

SteveC

Really?
Staff member
I am continously amazed that people think there is an issue when using three (not two, THREE) columns for logging.

Column 1 = PIC (head mofo in charge of the flight)
Column 2 = SIC (“yes master”/gear bitch)
Column 3 = Part 61 “PIC” (can legally log PIC, but didn’t “sign” for the plane)

If you are filling out an airline application you use the number from column 1 to answer the “how much PIC time” question. Column 2 + column 3 = SIC time.

Why people think this would cause heartache for an airline interviewer is beyond my comprehension. It not only fills the blank the way that the airline wants it filled, it shows very plainly that the applicant actually understands the difference between “acting PIC” and “logging PIC”. AND it gives them the option to actually use legally logable PIC time in those situations where it would be to their benefit.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Also, airlines are commonly explicit about exactly what they're asking for. Here is Southwest.

"PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls. For military personnel, Southwest Airlines will allow flight time logged as "Pilot in Command" (PIC) only if you are the Captain/Aircraft Commander, Evaluator, or Instructor Pilot. Primary time will only be considered PIC on a specific aircraft after an individual upgrades to Aircraft Commander n the appropriate aircraft. Time logged as "Other Time" will not be considered."

And, of course, that's what you give them. Giving them your sole manipulator time when they told you exactly what they wanted would be a lie.
 

Drchaser

New Member
All I asked was about the legalities of logging PIC time to meet R-ATP requirements. I never mentioned logging thousands of hours as PIC time to make myself look better during an interview. Acting and logging PIC are completely different things. I specifically stated it was for the purpose of meeting R-ATP requirements. After calling the FAA examiner who did my CFI checkride, he agreed with me but told me he cannot legally interpret any regulations for me and pointed me to the right place...FAA letter of interpretations. I have quoted parts of those interpretations to clarify multiple comments made in here. If you disagree, point the specific reference that would make logging such a flight time illegal.

It does not matter if you use autopilot you can still log PIC under "sole manipulator".
FAA 2015 letter of interpretation for Murphy states:
"The first logbook question, briefly stated, asks whether a pilot who uses an autopilot is sufficiently "manipulating the controls" of the aircraft to allow the pilot to log that time as pilot-in-comment (PIC) flight time. For the reasons stated below, a pilot may
log PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls when the pilot uses an autopilot."
The term rated does not apply to the operation (part 135/121) but only applies to the aircraft. It does not matter if you are IFR/VFR in part 91, 121, or 135. Therefore, you do not need to be 135 IFR PIC qualified. All you need is the SIC ride to be able to legally log any sort of flight time during such operation.
FAA 2009 Interpretation for Speranza:
"The FAA previously has stated the term "rated," as used in 61.51(3), refers to the pilot holding the appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required), and these rating are listed in 14 C.F.R 61.5 and are placed on the pilot certificate. ..As correctly noted in your letter, for the purpose of logging PIC time under 61.51(e), a pilot must hold ratings for the aircraft rather than for the conditions of flight. "

If you are still not convinced (idk what will) than answer this. How come a Private pilot, who is not instrument rated, can log PIC time with a CFII during a instrument lesson in IMC conditions in an IFR flight plan?

The Private pilot is not the "real Pic" but is still logging PIC time. Weird.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
All I asked was about the legalities of logging PIC time to meet R-ATP requirements. I never mentioned logging thousands of hours as PIC time to make myself look better during an interview. Acting and logging PIC are completely different things. I specifically stated it was for the purpose of meeting R-ATP requirements. After calling the FAA examiner who did my CFI checkride, he agreed with me but told me he cannot legally interpret any regulations for me and pointed me to the right place...FAA letter of interpretations. I have quoted parts of those interpretations to clarify multiple comments made in here. If you disagree, point the specific reference that would make logging such a flight time illegal.

It does not matter if you use autopilot you can still log PIC under "sole manipulator".
FAA 2015 letter of interpretation for Murphy states:
"The first logbook question, briefly stated, asks whether a pilot who uses an autopilot is sufficiently "manipulating the controls" of the aircraft to allow the pilot to log that time as pilot-in-comment (PIC) flight time. For the reasons stated below, a pilot may
log PIC time as the sole manipulator of the controls when the pilot uses an autopilot."
The term rated does not apply to the operation (part 135/121) but only applies to the aircraft. It does not matter if you are IFR/VFR in part 91, 121, or 135. Therefore, you do not need to be 135 IFR PIC qualified. All you need is the SIC ride to be able to legally log any sort of flight time during such operation.
FAA 2009 Interpretation for Speranza:
"The FAA previously has stated
the term "rated," as used in 61.51(3), refers to the pilot holding the appropriate aircraft ratings (category, class, and type, if a type rating is required), and these rating are listed in 14 C.F.R 61.5 and are placed on the pilot certificate. ..As correctly noted in your letter, for the purpose of logging PIC time under 61.51(e), a pilot must hold ratings for the aircraft rather than for the conditions of flight. "

If you are still not convinced (idk what will) than answer this. How come a Private pilot, who is not instrument rated, can log PIC time with a CFII during a instrument lesson in IMC conditions in an IFR flight plan?

The Private pilot is not the "real Pic" but is still logging PIC time. Weird.
No one really doubts that. "Previously has stated" means "We said this every damn time we have been asked about logging PIC since at least 1977"- longer than some folks here have been alive, let alone pilots.

The question for some is whether to log PIC for the FAA or log PIC for an airline application. For some, the answer is to do both and present what an application asks for. For others it's way too difficult or smacks of some lack of virtue.
 

Drchaser

New Member
No one really doubts that. "Previously has stated" means "We said this every damn time we have been asked about logging PIC since at least 1977"- longer than some folks here have been alive, let alone pilots.

The question for some is whether to log PIC for the FAA or log PIC for an airline application. For some, the answer is to do both and present what an application asks for. For others it's way too difficult or smacks of some lack of virtue.
It should not be that difficult. If the FAA allows it then I do not see why one would not log such a time if it is benefiting to them. Telling someone not to log "sole manipulator" time as PIC to meet rating requirements because there might be complications down the road with interviews, is no different than telling a commercial student pilot to not log PIC time while with an instructor. If the regulations says you can...you can. Airlines will specifically ask for what they want. The one I applied to, requested that CFI PIC time not be included with "traditional" PIC time and I didn't. And despite what most people have been saying I got the job and no one questioned my PIC time.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
It should not be that difficult. If the FAA allows it then I do not see why one would not log such a time if it is benefiting to them. Telling someone not to log "sole manipulator" time as PIC to meet rating requirements because there might be complications down the road with interviews, is no different than telling a commercial student pilot to not log PIC time while with an instructor. If the regulations says you can...you can. Airlines will specifically ask for what they want. The one I applied to, requested that CFI PIC time not be included with "traditional" PIC time and I didn't. And despite what most people have been saying I got the job and no one questioned my PIC time.
"Should not" is meaningless. You can't account for other people's decisions or what they have difficulty with.

All I ever do on this and other regulatory subjects is try to give information. I don't try to mandate how to use it.
 
Top