299 line check

[pilotyip]

And your point is?

"IF IT IS LEGAL, IS LEGAL it doesn't matter if you approve or dissaprove the FAA said IS LEGAL.
If some of you won't give credit for this type of flight time so what it is LEGAL. As an employer I recommend to keep your mouth shut, if you don't want that kind of applicants just don't hire them don't pick at the subject during the interview just to have something to talk about or you could end up with a law suit on your hands. This type of case will stick in the hands of a very good lawyer and you will have to pay $$$$. CASE CLOSED
(I know the majors like to pick at this, but they have lawyers on staff and have a lot of money and resources to fight for a long time)."

and your point is?

 

[B737Dvr]

I am sure you have hired guys like that... that is unfortunate. Maybe the interview could have gone a little different and you could have figured out that they were not the right person. I don't want to get into pissing match with you, because your mind is made up. But, many guys have been making decisions as PIC because they were flying single pilot long before they did any crew flying. Besides, the 299 check does nothing as far as teaching any pilot new skills to make them a better PIC. All of them that I have flown, the FAA guys sits in the back and does paperwork! From my crew experience, I have no problem flying as the PIC and I have not flown that 299 in our jet yet. Although I have not been the designated PIC, we do switch roles so that both pilots can get experience with this position. As always, the PIC has the final say, but it is good training and practice. I will fly our 299 in Oct. The other pilot flew it last year... so I guess he will have to log FAKE PIC time this year. Does anyone else see how ridiculous any of this is? As far as I am concerned, the 299 is a fun way for the FAA to get out of the office.

fr8r, it is obvious by the content of your posting and your major hardon for logging PIC time that you are quite inexperienced. PilotYip, has your real-world practical answer. What he is trying to tell you (and 9 out of 10 people who make hiring decisions will agree with him) is that if you show up to an interview with PIC time and then go on to explain that X amount of it is 'as sole manipulator of the controls", they will laugh in your face and discount all of it.
your position on switching roles based on corporate aviation switching seats is misleading and detracts from infallible point of there only being 1 true PIC.
The fact that you are squeezing legalese to suit your needs to build time totally demonstrates your lack of experience and calls to attention the fact that you truly dont understand how employers (135 and 121) view the PIC role. We all understand that if you are the pilot flying, the guy in the right seat (who is the real PIC) can take that plane away from you at any time, and is the one that everyone will hold accountable on the ground for anything that happens because...he is the pilot in command.

Take pilotyip's realworld advice to heart, the other alternative is to hold on to your naive beliefs, state your PIC time as sole manipulator and then watch as the interviewer will tear it to shreds.

btw....someone else on here tried to help you out as well by telling you that you got a lower level on the fly interpretation of the regs. If you knew better, you'd know that what you heard isn't something that you could take to court because it didnt come from national legal counsel and isn't binding.
If you had more experience you would know that if you ask 4 FSDO's a question, you will get 4 different interpretations. Ever get ramped in one part of the country, face a problem and then tell the inspector that the local FSDO has signed off on it only to hear that it is still a problem? Ever been to another country and hear a different foreign interpretation of an ICAO rule, even tho you are legit by FAA standards?

Bottom line, big jet operators care about how much time you have as a captain (with full authority and responsibility) and dont give a ******************** how much time you have manipulating the controls. a monkey can do that, but it takes experience, good judgement and common sense to know whats important as a captain and what is bs.

 

[pilotyip]

"IF IT IS LEGAL, IS LEGAL it doesn't matter if you approve or dissaprove the FAA said IS LEGAL.
If some of you won't give credit for this type of flight time so what it is LEGAL. As an employer I recommend to keep your mouth shut, if you don't want that kind of applicants just don't hire them don't pick at the subject during the interview just to have something to talk about or you could end up with a law suit on your hands. This type of case will stick in the hands of a very good lawyer and you will have to pay $$$$. CASE CLOSED
(I know the majors like to pick at this, but they have lawyers on staff and have a lot of money and resources to fight for a long time).

"

When a trip goes south, the 1st question the DO asks is "Who was the Captain?" Which means who signed for the airplane, who made the decisions, and there is lillte interest who was holding the controlls. That is why signing for the airplane is real PIC time irreguardless of what the regs say.

 

[coolarrow]

Point is: I am only talking about what is legal to log. If a pilot wants to log it that way is his choice and legal, however as an employer for hiring purpose the time doesn't have very much value if any.What I am saying is don't make it ovbious that is the only reason for disqualifiing the applicant for the employers protection.

 

[B737Dvr]

Point is: I am only talking about what is legal to log. If a pilot wants to log it that way is his choice and legal, however as an employer for hiring purpose the time doesn't have very much value if any.What I am saying is don't make it ovbious that is the only reason for disqualifiing the applicant for the employers protection.

LOL!!! Man it's really funny and cute to see younguns and newbies grip any far that works to their advantage when it comes to logging time and building experience. I remember what it was like to be there and be inexperienced, but I DID listen to the advice from more experienced pilots who did their best to guide moves that would have consequences in the future.

Log every hour PIC for all I care, there is no protecting the employer here, they need no protection, there is only protection being offered for those that are so desperate to log PIC at any cost, that I advise against it, because not only will it get shot down and discounted, but you as a pilot and person will lose face in trying to slide those (fake PIC hours past them).....lesson 101, here boys and girls, yes they are fake when viewed by any relevant employer because you were not in command.

perhaps a webster's quote would further drive the point home......i actually dont care enough to do it, so I'll tell you what,...go ahead and log PIC time till your heart's content. Try and push that past an interviewer and when it blows up in your face, perhaps there is no better person suited to help those that are even younger, than to hear about how someone disregarded all advice to him, went ahead and did whatever he wanted only to have it blow up in his face and lose the interview and job because of it.

You guys can serve as an example of what not to do.

 

[pilotyip]

Reality does not fit what I want to do

Point is: I am only talking about what is legal to log. If a pilot wants to log it that way is his choice and legal, however as an employer for hiring purpose the time doesn't have very much value if any.What I am saying is don't make it ovbious that is the only reason for disqualifiing the applicant for the employers protection

B737 stop dealing with a reality this is a pilot board.

 

[BushwickBill]

The 299 line check ride by the FAA can be done for a PIC and/or SIC check. In my case, I did both and therefore, am actually 'Captain qualified' on the a/c per the FAA for Part 135 Ops. However, I am not the 'Captain of record' when dispatched, therefore, I am not the Captain on the a/c (the company acutally calls me a 'co-capt' but I am paid and treated as an F.O.). Therefore, I only log the flight time that I am actually manipulating the controls (which is 50% of the time anyway) as PIC -but only as 'sole manipulator'.

To answer your question however, if I only did or passed the SIC portion of the 299 ride but not the PIC portion, then NO, I would not log ANY of my flight time as PIC under Part 135. If however, we were dispatched as a Part 91 flight, then I would log my actual flight time as 'Sole Manipulator' PIC since I am typed and current and the 299 PIC line check would not apply. However, now we are splitting hairs a little bit, LOL.

I see what you mean now. It is legal to log this time as Part 91 PIC time. If your not a current 299 captain you can't log 135 legs as PIC.

Part 91 PIC time can be usefull for insurance qualification for example. If someone wants to hire you and they know this was logged under part 91 why worry?

The boog is correct in his asertion that you should do some explaining for an interview.

Some may consider you presenting your PIC time as a 135 line captain unethical.

You are 299 current. So I don't understand why your stressin foo'. You must be 135 captain for something for your company to spend the money on a 299 check. Again why worry?

 

[Viffer]

Ok, you guys do realize there are many zero turbine PIC pilots who make captain at airlines, and fly their first trips full of passengers with ZERO turbine PIC, right? Look, what you log or don't log means nothing, as long as it's accurate and acceptable to the FAA. ANY sense of a pilot's experience, knowledge and skill can be determined with a proper interviewing process, regardless of how much PIC time they have. How can anyone have ANY 'real' PIC time anyway until they are first turned loose as the PIC, and to do that they need to show certain amounts of PIC in their logbooks.

No operator is going to set a lower time pilot loose as a captain until they've flown with them enough, and have observed enough of their skill and judgement to be comfortable with them. This is true regardless of how much time they have or don't have in their logbook. Pilotyip seems to have forgotten how pilots get their start in the professional world, regardless of the advice and opinion, which I tend to agree with. But you have to realize that for entry level jobs outside of 121, xxx PIC time is a requirement, but no pilot is going to be set loose before they proove themselves competent to act as captains. Short of logging the PF legs there is no way to ever aquire that time, and a pilot would be perpetually 'stuck' without any way to move up as they gain experience. ANd no, quitting a jet job to go fly 134.5 in a cessna 310 is not an answer to increase the PIC column either. They will stay in their copilot jobs, build time, gain experience and learn, and eventually become captains, just like all of us did.

 

[pilotyip]

Not time integrity

Ok, Pilotyip seems to have forgotten how pilots get their start in the professional world, regardless of the advice and opinion, which I tend to agree with. But you have to realize that for entry level jobs outside of 121, xxx PIC time is a requirement, but no pilot is going to be set loose before they proove themselves competent to act as captains.

It is not the time it is the content of applicant’s character, by logging bogus PIC and even bogus SIC flying in a King Air under part 91 they are pretending to be something they are not. A case of being out of touch with reality, they are being dishonest even though it may be legal. This will most likely manifest itself in other aspects of the job. A pilot comes to us no PIC, flies a good sim and is honest about their accomplishments; they are way ahead of the bogus PIC candidate.

 

[Viffer]

It is not the time it is the content of applicant’s character, by logging bogus PIC and even bogus SIC flying in a King Air under part 91 they are pretending to be something they are not. A case of being out of touch with reality, they are being dishonest even though it may be legal. This will most likely manifest itself in other aspects of the job. A pilot comes to us no PIC, flies a good sim and is honest about their accomplishments; they are way ahead of the bogus PIC candidate.

What's in their logbook is not bogus time, it's faa defined pic. What's in their experience is an entirely different thing. Now, what would you say to a pilot who's been flying SIC in a jet job for about 3000 hours, all sic. Does that pilot not have the skills to act as a pic in that operation, even after all that time? Insurance companies, ARGUS, WYVERN and all don't care if that pic time was in a 747 or a cessna 152, and how applicable is instructor time in a cessna to acting as the signing pilot of a jet anyway? Time is not bogus, and those hiring can easily tell a pilots experience base regardless of what ever is listed as PIC. And again, it is NOT bogus time, but it is not the time you are defining. Your definition of PIC, which I also said I agree with, can ONLY come from being dispatched as a captain, and how do you get there these days without any pic in your logbok?

 

[stupidpilot]

PIC under FAR Part 1 is different from sole manipulator. If the aircraft is actually dispatched, and there is listed a PIC on the dispatch sheet, then you cannot log PIC per part 1, but you can per part 91 as sole manipulator. Most airlines only are interested in Part 1 PIC.

 

[Viffer]

Airlines all don't care the same. How about a 500 hour total time pilot who hires on with a commuter, he's got maybe a couple hundred hours pic tops, all in small piston planes. He will fly until his senority says he can bid captain and then he will be flying as a 121 pic, starting out with zero turbine pic of any kind. So how do they know he's ready? Obviously as a pilot starts and stays with a job, he learns, gains experience, and shows the examiners and employers he can handle the job of pic, then is upgraded. What is in their logbook doesn't really even come in to play for all 121, and for the 91/135 world they need a minimum of pic, tt and time in type to be insured and usable as a pic by the operator and audit companies like argus. For that, the auditors don't have a care what kind of pic they have logged as long as they have enough hours, usually about 2500 pic. My point is that somone who looks over a pilot resume will easily be able to judge their real world experience, and a pilot logging pic is not being dishonest, they're being real. It's up to the companies to hire truly qualified pilots for captain jobs, and they can tell if a pilot has the experience or not. No pilot is going to sit for 5 years as a sic simply because they are not allowed to fly the plane or log any meaningful time, and can't get their logbook up to a number that makes them hireable. And for the captains out there who disagree, how did you all get started? At some point you were put into the captain position because someone thought you could handle it and took a chance on you. You somehow learned the skills to act as captain, and gained your first real world experience while still a copilot, and none of you had any 'signed aircraft' pic in your logbooks at that time either. No one does. Don't look at a pilot's logbook and jump to conclusions about their integrity or honesty. Doing that, which was shown and supported in this thread, just highlights what I would call ignorance on the part of those making the judgements.

 

[pilotyip]

either. Don't look at a pilot's logbook and jump to conclusions about their integrity or honesty. Doing that, which was shown and supported in this thread, just highlights what I would call ignorance on the part of those making the judgements.

I will continue to look at a pilot's log books, if I see PIC or SIC time where it does not fit, I am going to question it. That is part of the hiring process. I remember a 3000 hr pilot, CE-500 type rating, 1500 PIC under part 91 in a corp CE-500. Looked like a good catch. As a SIC he could not do descent planning, no idea of fuel planning, talking on the radio was a challenge for this guy. Remember we hired this guy as a potential captain. Turns out he made coffee and carried bags for the owner, never flew, never even talked on the radio, it was all bogus PIC time. BTW he had a nice touch on the gear and flap handels.

 

[Way2Broke]

BTW he had a nice touch on the gear and flap handels.

Now that was funny! :beer:

 

[Viffer]

I will continue to look at a pilot's log books, if I see PIC or SIC time where it does not fit, I am going to question it. That is part of the hiring process. I remember a 3000 hr pilot, CE-500 type rating, 1500 PIC under part 91 in a corp CE-500. Looked like a good catch. As a SIC he could not do descent planning, no idea of fuel planning, talking on the radio was a challenge for this guy. Remember we hired this guy as a potential captain. Turns out he made coffee and carried bags for the owner, never flew, never even talked on the radio, it was all bogus PIC time. BTW he had a nice touch on the gear and flap handels.

Ok that all goes to my point that you need to determine a pilots skill level before you hire them. As the hirer you need to ascertain what they really did in their previous jobs. It also illustrates what can happen with some pilots, not all, who are not allowed to be a part of the trip planning process, and have very little actual time flying the airplane. Captains and flight managers who act like that are their own worst enemies, and any sic who knows that no matter what they are not let into the process and are only alowed to fly if and when there's no pax etc, will develope a 'why bother' attitude. Every operator, department manager, CP and line captain needs to give their sic's the same amount of the chores as every other pilot, or of course they won't develope the skills to be a pic. Every captain needs to let the sic's fly the plane, no matter how any pax, weather, x-winds etc, and they need to let them make flight decisions. A captain who can't or won't do that has no room to complain when that sic doesn't grow into a pic quickly or easily with their company.

Pilotyip, let me ask you something. How did you get your first start as a signing captain? How much time did you have in your logbook as pic as you are describing it in this thread? In other words, how much signing captain time did you have in turbine airplanes when your first flight as a turbine pic? By your own definition of bogus time, I'd say you had zero, because no one can possibly have any by your words. Instead, we have to prove we have the skills to be given that opportunity, and no amount of time in a logbook is going to be the determining factor. That does NOT mean a pilot is not capable either, as you, I and most all pilots have shown when they first make captain.

 

[pilotyip]

Bogus is bogus

Pilotyip, let me ask you something. How did you get your first start as a signing captain? How much time did you have in your logbook as pic as you are describing it in this thread? In other words, how much signing captain time did you have in turbine airplanes when your first flight as a turbine pic? By your own definition of bogus time, I'd say you had zero, because no one can possibly have any by your words. Instead, we have to prove we have the skills to be given that opportunity, and no amount of time in a logbook is going to be the determining factor. That does NOT mean a pilot is not capable either, as you, I and most all pilots have shown when they first make captain.

My first flight as PIC was on July 14 1970 in a P-3A, Buno 150609, 200 NM west of Rota Spain 10.1 hours. I flew a range clearing mission for a Naval Weapons testing exercise. I had no bogus time prior to that point. I was not trying to pretent to be something I was not. Back to the point, Hello Mr 750TT pilot, I see you have 257 hours PIC in a KA-200. Where did you get your training?, Oh I see you made three T/O's and Landing with the boss. No other training, are you named on the insurance? I see. Yes I know sole man is legal PIC, but it proves nothing. In this case it is not even legal SIC.

 

[Viffer]

My first flight as PIC was on July 14 1970 in a P-3A, Buno 150609, 200 NM west of Rota Spain 10.1 hours. I flew a range clearing mission for a Naval Weapons testing exercise. I had no bogus time prior to that point. I was not trying to pretent to be something I was not. Back to the point, Hello Mr 750TT pilot, I see you have 257 hours PIC in a KA-200. Where did you get your training?, Oh I see you made three T/O's and Landing with the boss. No other training, are you named on the insurance? I see. Yes I know sole man is legal PIC, but it proves nothing. In this case it is not even legal SIC.

Ready for the quiz.

Again, that's what I'm getting at, a good interview will show where a pilot really is and what they've really done. Here's a hypothetical situation that might better show what I'm try to say. Let's say you find a candidate with 3000 hours total time, who's been flying sic on a citation, lear, falcon whatever. His logbook has zero pic turbine because he is logging as you do, which is fine. Now this pilot interviews with a great attitude, shows superior skills and knowledge, and you hire them in as a future captain. Problem in the civilian world is this, you can never upgrade that pilot no matter how long they work for you, no matter how great their skills are and no matter how much quality real world experience they gain while working for you. Why? Because as long as they are there they will not put one hour of pic in their logbook, and they will be uninsurable regardless of anything else. If 135 was part of it then they would also need to meet the argus, wyvern etc pic mins or they will be unusable for certain 135 flights on top of that even. So how does that great pilot get upgraded? They can't, ever, without logging some pic.

BTW I'm not saying you're wrong about how you view pic time, and I agree that what the faa says is pic is not an indicator of what real experience a pilot has under their belt. No one really learns every aspect of being in command with being in command, but we have to get there somehow. And you are in a position to judge when a pilot of yours is ready, what would you say to them when you know they are up to it and you want them in the captain seat, but your insurer says forget it? They will instantly start the job search and be gone no matter how much they like the job, and you have to start from scratch with another pilot.

 

[pilotyip]

UAL in thier application explicily states in thier definition of PIC time. do not count sole manipulator (61.51) as PIC time

 

[B737Dvr]

round and round and round we go....where we end up, nobody knows!

Ready for the quiz.

Again, that's what I'm getting at, a good interview will show where a pilot really is and what they've really done. Here's a hypothetical situation that might better show what I'm try to say. Let's say you find a candidate with 3000 hours total time, who's been flying sic on a citation, lear, falcon whatever. His logbook has zero pic turbine because he is logging as you do, which is fine. Now this pilot interviews with a great attitude, shows superior skills and knowledge, and you hire them in as a future captain. Problem in the civilian world is this, you can never upgrade that pilot no matter how long they work for you, no matter how great their skills are and no matter how much quality real world experience they gain while working for you. Why? Because as long as they are there they will not put one hour of pic in their logbook, and they will be uninsurable regardless of anything else.


Not true. There are plenty of operators who do get very low time prodigies or SIC's with no PIC time and after paying their dues...they get upgraded. Insurance requirements are like hiring mins, always flexible depending on the situation. Insurance premiums reflect the situation, and underwriters do take into consideration time in type as well as overrall experience.



If 135 was part of it then they would also need to meet the argus, wyvern etc pic mins or they will be unusable for certain 135 flights on top of that even.

Don't get me started on that whole argus, wyvern crap cause most relevant operators know who is reputable and who isn't. that is only something brokers who have little contacts use as a selling point and after the latest several blackeyes that corporate aviation got in the last several years from accidents in TEB, ASE, and other places, youll find that those involved had high ratings with argus, wyvern...



So how does that great pilot get upgraded? They can't, ever, without logging some pic.

BTW I'm not saying you're wrong about how you view pic time, and I agree that what the faa says is pic is not an indicator of what real experience a pilot has under their belt. No one really learns every aspect of being in command with being in command, but we have to get there somehow. And you are in a position to judge when a pilot of yours is ready, what would you say to them when you know they are up to it and you want them in the captain seat, but your insurer says forget it? They will instantly start the job search and be gone no matter how much they like the job, and you have to start from scratch with another pilot.

Here is something else for you to consider: When there is an accident, and everyone (NTSB, FAA, Insurers etc) start going over training records, logbooks, history.....i will guarantee you that your bogus PIC time (as sole manipulator) will be a prime reason why any payout by the insurer will be null and void due to the misrepresentation of experience.
This whole sole manipulator things was and is for the sole purpose of qualifying for ratings while in training. I mean, what's next including all your solo time(pre private pilot rating) in C-152 towards 135 pic mins?

It's a tough industry, getting the time is tough, being competive is even tougher. Staying audit proof is tougher still.........but showing up to an interview and saying that you were typed from day one and have only logged SIC time from day one, shows that you are completely honest and furthermore shows that you understand what is important, you will be surprised at how things work out so that you are indeed able to fill in a PIC role from day one with no real jet or heavy PIC time to speak of.


In the end, you guys will do what you want, and this is subject to interpretation, but I am conservative in my approach to things. I am cautiously optimistic, if an employer says: fine, then rework your resume and show half of your experience as PIC to satisfy reqs.....then let him/her make THAT CALL.

Best of luck to all you guys out there, its a tough industry/field/profession.

 

[fr8r]

fr8r, it is obvious by the content of your posting and your major hardon for logging PIC time that you are quite inexperienced. PilotYip, has your real-world practical answer. What he is trying to tell you (and 9 out of 10 people who make hiring decisions will agree with him) is that if you show up to an interview with PIC time and then go on to explain that X amount of it is 'as sole manipulator of the controls", they will laugh in your face and discount all of it.
your position on switching roles based on corporate aviation switching seats is misleading and detracts from infallible point of there only being 1 true PIC.
The fact that you are squeezing legalese to suit your needs to build time totally demonstrates your lack of experience and calls to attention the fact that you truly dont understand how employers (135 and 121) view the PIC role. We all understand that if you are the pilot flying, the guy in the right seat (who is the real PIC) can take that plane away from you at any time, and is the one that everyone will hold accountable on the ground for anything that happens because...he is the pilot in command.

Take pilotyip's realworld advice to heart, the other alternative is to hold on to your naive beliefs, state your PIC time as sole manipulator and then watch as the interviewer will tear it to shreds.

btw....someone else on here tried to help you out as well by telling you that you got a lower level on the fly interpretation of the regs. If you knew better, you'd know that what you heard isn't something that you could take to court because it didnt come from national legal counsel and isn't binding.
If you had more experience you would know that if you ask 4 FSDO's a question, you will get 4 different interpretations. Ever get ramped in one part of the country, face a problem and then tell the inspector that the local FSDO has signed off on it only to hear that it is still a problem? Ever been to another country and hear a different foreign interpretation of an ICAO rule, even tho you are legit by FAA standards?

Bottom line, big jet operators care about how much time you have as a captain (with full authority and responsibility) and dont give a ******************** how much time you have manipulating the controls. a monkey can do that, but it takes experience, good judgement and common sense to know whats important as a captain and what is bs.

Thanks for shooting me dead. I have actually signed for many aircraft... both turbine/jet. I have plenty of experience to talk politely about this subject as well. I don't need to hurl insults at people about their experience. I was only asking if someone could clarify LOGGING of PIC. If you read my posts, then you would realize that I know the difference between ACTING as PIC and LOGGING PIC. I've also been ramp checked and the whole gambit. I guess I need to place in my profile that I too have flown all the heavy metal in the world. Because the last time I checked, it doesn't mean you know it all. This is exactly why I haven't been on this site in a while. Everyone loves to jab at everyone else. It's very elementary.

 

[B737Dvr]

you answered your own question!

Thanks for shooting me dead. I have actually signed for many aircraft... both turbine/jet. I have plenty of experience to talk politely about this subject as well. I don't need to hurl insults at people about their experience. I was only asking if someone could clarify LOGGING of PIC. If you read my posts, then you would realize that I know the difference between ACTING as PIC and LOGGING PIC. I've also been ramp checked and the whole gambit. I guess I need to place in my profile that I too have flown all the heavy metal in the world. Because the last time I checked, it doesn't mean you know it all. This is exactly why I haven't been on this site in a while. Everyone loves to jab at everyone else. It's very elementary.

Please explain to me what the difference is between logging of PIC and flying as PIC!!!! I humbly request a detailed explanation here.

 

[B737Dvr]

Upon further investigation....

Let me ask this in more simple terms. Do you need a 299 line check in order to log PIC time on 135 (with pax onboard) legs? In this scenario, the designated PIC has done a 299. So, can the FO (with 293 & 297) fly left seat and log PIC time with pax onboard?

Hmmm, I decided to go back and read your posts, and I am going to very nicely state that you do not know what is required to log PIC time.
In order to fly as a PIC on live part 135 legs with people on board, you need to have your 293, 297 and 299 all valid. your scenario really illuminates that you are trying to split hairs here. In your scenario with a DESIGNATED PIC....STOP THERE.....
There is already a designated PIC on the flight, there can be no other. You continue to ask if the FO can log PIC time from the left seat,.....I SAY AGAIN, There is already a designated PIC onboard, the FO is the FO and cannot be the PIC so THEREFORE CANNOT LOG PIC.

I understand that the regs allow the logging of PIC under certain situations in flight training for a safety pilot, CFI's or an international relief captain....but on regular 2 man flights for a jet that requires 2 pilots, you cannot have more than 1 PIC.

Let me ask you a question.....If the FO logs PIC time in your scenario and there is an incident or accident, does he tell the feds he was the PIC or SIC?

Will his answer be the same as the company's answer?

When the feds examine his logbook, and they ask him why did he choose to log PIC time, what will be his reasoning?

Enlighten me please.

 

[fr8r]

This entire post occurred because I was having a discussion with a friend about this subject. Maybe you should personally look up the difference between LOGGING and ACTING. There is a legal difference and it has nothing to do with interviewing at your precious airline.

 

[fr8r]

737dvr,

I do understand your argument and I agree with you. My question was only about logging time. Can 2 pilots log PIC time? The answer is actually YES. Should you? is another question. That is all I was getting at. I have heard many different reasons/answers, but the truth is that there are a few scenarios where 2 pilots can log PIC. It doesn't mean that you are acting as PIC. The notes section of the logbook will serve well here. It is possible to have 2 guys on board each with the .299 check, but only one can sign for the aircraft. It is a confusing topic, but an important topic... we (pilots) all have to fill boxes. Might as well make sure your doing it right, or flying might be a tough career!

 

[BEfly]

I couldn't agree with Pilotyip more on this subject.

If in the occasion 2 captains are paired together, the more senior is PIC. PIC as in left seat, designated on the trip sheet, on the flight log, and on the Flight plan. No exceptions. Some guys don't like it but it certainly does away with a lot of confusion. I've flown with guys like who log PIC however they can to build their resume. I understand, I do! But this profession should have more honesty in the foundation, and that goes for everything, not just logging time.

FR8R - All the FO's I fly with are typed, and every now and then when we get an empty leg I'll hop in the right seat and let them run the show. That includes fuel planning, flight planning (with their name in the box) and calling all the shots. If its done like that then I don't consider that "bogus PIC". They are building experience by making decisions and feeling a little pressure. EVEN THOUGH I am there as their safety net, the company still sees me as the one in charge, and I anything should happen It's gonna be my ass anyway. Soooo in this case, we both log PIC. That's one of the very few scenarios that I can think of in which both pilots could be logging PIC legitimately.

 

[fr8r]

Jeppesen's FARs Explained by Kent Jackson

"There are 2 ways to log PIC time that are pertinent to this question. The first is as the pilot responsible for the safety and operation of an aircraft during flight time. If a pilot is designated as a PIC for a flight by the certificate holder, as required by 135.109, that person is designated as PIC for the entire flight, no matter who is actually manipulating the controls of the aircraft, because that pilot is responsible for the safety and operation of the aircraft. The second way to log PIC flight time that is pertinent to this questions is to be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated. Thus, a multi-engine airplane flown under Part 135 by 2 pilots can have both pilots logging time as PIC when the appropriately rated SIC is manipulating the controls. We stress however, that here we are discussing LOGGING of flight time for the purpose of FAR61.51, where you are keeping a record to show recent flight experience or to show that you meet the requirements for a higher rating."

Then they say:

"Your question does not say if the SIC in your example is fully qualified as a PIC, or only an SIC. This is important, because even though an SIC can log PIC time, that pilot has not qualified to SERVE as a PIC under part 135. An example of the difference is 135.225(d), which raises IFR landing minimums for PIC's of turbine powered airplanes flown under Part 135 who have not SERVED at least 100 hours as PIC in that type of airplane. SERVED and LOGGED are not the same in this context, and no matter how the SIC logs his time, he has not SERVED as a PIC until he has completed the training and check rides necessary for certification as a Part 135 PIC."

So if you are only SIC qualified under 135, but typed & current in the airplane, you can LOG PIC.

from actechbooks.com with the book available on it:
"About the authors:
Kent Jackson and Lori Jackson are attorneys with the law firm of Jackson, Wade, and Blanck, LLC. The firm promotes and fosters the aviation industry by getting clients through the conflicting requirements of the FAA, IRS, and other international, federal, and local governing bodies. Jackson, Wade, & Blanck, LLC provides extensive assistance in structuring the acquisition, ownership, and operation of aircraft. Jackson, Wade, & Blanck has represented clients in acquisitions from all major aircraft manufacturers including Augusta, Bell, Boeing, Bombardier, Cessna, Dassault, Eclipse, Fairchild Dornier, Galaxy, Gulfstream, Learjet, Pilatus, Raytheon, and Sikorsky. The firm represents pilots and companies in enforcing actions before the DOT, FAA, IRS, and other agencies."

Again, my initial question was about logging time. I know some airlines don't care about that time, and rightly so, but you should differentiate that in your log notes. then you won't have to explain anything to anyone. Let it be know up front that you are not claiming that you have SERVED as PIC just by LOGGING PIC. That you only logged PIC time for the purposes of a rating/experience requirements. Anyhow, I hope this helps.

 

[727Niteflyer]

doesnt logging pic kind of elude that you were the pic of the aircraft.

Ive never heard of an arguement like this in 135 or 121. If your checked as an SIC you can log PIC ?

Logging PIC doesnt mean your acting as PIC ?

This is weird.

With the exception of 737drvr and Pilotyip, I dont think any of the others on here have a clue of what your talking about.

 

[avbug]

That nearly everyone can be so universally wrong on the topic is truly mind bending. Particularly with respect to a very clear, very simple, very short regulation. There's no room for debate, or even room to question the regulation.

So far as what looks best in an interview room, a clean, legally maintained logbook looks best.

Yes, there is a distinct difference between logging PIC, and acting as PIC. Two entirely different subjects.

Does pre-private solo experience count toward Part 135 pilot experience minimums? Yes, it does.

Do most interviewers in Part 121 and 135 operations look only at time spent ACTING as PIC, when considering pilot in command time? Yes. Does this have any impact on the legal logging of flight time? No.

The regulation is very clear. The original poster asked a simple question:

Does anyone have the definite answer for this? If you are typed, 293 and 297 current, is a 299 required to log PIC time in an aircraft? Basically, can you log PIC if you are not the signing captain? I have read some posts on this, but there are several opinions. I read the regs as that it is legal to log PIC for logging purposes.

You ask if a pilot who has received his initial, instrument proficiency, and PIC checks, can log time as PIC if he hasn't received a line check. The answer is YES, he can.

You've received a litany of answers, largely opinion, which address whether you should log the time or not, but that isn't what you asked. You asked if you can, and the answer is yes.

A bewildering array of incorrect ideas have been thrown out at you, such as being the subject of legal action or administrative action by insurance, the FAA, et al, if you log PIC time (when you're legally allowed to do so). All of this is incorrect and should be disregarded. Simplify the issue. Can you log the time? Yes. Should you? You decide.

Acting as PIC is not the same as logging PIC.

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person—
(i) Is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges;
(ii) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft; or
(iii) Except for a recreational pilot, is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
(2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate.
(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all flight time while acting as an authorized instructor.
(4) A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time only when the student pilot—
(i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft or is performing the duties of pilot of command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Has a current solo flight endorsement as required under §61.87 of this part; and
(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating.

 

[727Niteflyer]

The orginal question was how it related to 135. In 135 to be PIC you need to be qualified. If your not qualified why would you want to log it ? 91 is much different.

 

[avbug]

The orginal question was how it related to 135. In 135 to be PIC you need to be qualified. If your not qualified why would you want to log it ? 91 is much different.

My answer covered that.

The logging of flight time is covered under, and regulated by 14 CFR Part 61; not 91 or 135.