299 line check

[StarHustler]

I don't care what the FAA says

Yeah! Who cares what the FAA says anyways!

 

[pilotyip]

Hey, it might be legal per the FAA, but it really does not count as far as being a PIC.

 

[Limeyflyer]

When you make captain, make a new column for Capt.PIC and there you have it. Companies always have an issue somewhere in your logbook with how you entered some numbers, as long as you can explain it you are all good.

 

[fr8r]

I don't care what the FAA says, it is bogus PIC time for your next job. You did not sign for the A/C, you are not making PIC decisions. I have hired some of these bogus PIC times pilots. They are not Captain material. But if it makes you feel good and buys beer in the bar, hey go for it.

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.

 

[pilotyip]

Content of character

I am sure you have hired guys like that... that is unfortunate. I guess he will have to log FAKE PIC time this year. Does anyone else see how ridiculous any of this is? .

If a person logs PIC under 135/121 when they do not sign for the airplane, it is a false logbook entry. It is no different than 500 hrs of Parker Pen time in an airplane they did not fly. They are pretending to be something that they are not. The question is, if those false entries are made what other deviations from expected standards will there be?

 

[avbug]

I finally got the legal interpretaion from the FAA. You can log PIC without a 299, but you have to be current and qualified in the airplane. Also have to be the sole manipulator of the controls. The 299 is also not seat specific. But, you still must have done a 297 since it is the PIC check usually done in a sim. The 299 is only for a signing captain. If you have had a 299 and you are the signing captain for that flight, you log all of it as PIC regardless of what the other guy is logging. So, this is a situation where both pilots can log PIC. Similar to using a safety pilot for practice approaches. This is all straight from the FAA.

I've read the thread, and it's the same old tired comments, virtually every one of which is wrong.

First of all, opinion is irrelevant. The poster asked a regulatory question. Simply put, if the poster is rated in the aircraft, does he need any 135 checks at all to log time in the airplane NO!!! He does not.

Logging PIC, and acting as PIC are entirely different subjects. You do not need to be the PIC, to log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. This is not disputable, and is clearly spelled out in the regulation, as well as numerous legal interpretations.

Now, as far as your own "legal interpretation," I get the awful feeling that you spoke to someone at the FSDO level and came away with what you thought was an answer. Bottom line here; if that answer came from the FSDO level, even from your POI, it has no weight and no merit beyond a personal opinion. It's not defensible, you can never hold it up to scrutiny or in defense of your actions, and the Administrator doesn't recognize it, nor support it.

If that interpretation came from the regional or chief legal counsel, that's another matter...but as it disagrees with the FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations, it would appear you got a personal observation at the lower levels.

Now, from a legal point of view, PilotYip is incorrect. You may log the time. From a practical point of view, Pilotyip is very correct; if you log the time and attempt to use that time toward a 121 or 135 job, most employers will consider it inappropriate, discount it, and most likely view you in a lesser light as a result. If you log it and use it toward a Part 91 job, most employers will count it just like any other time.

Are you legal to log the time? Yes. Should you? That's really up to you. If you're applying to a certificate holder then you will need to be sure to separate the times, and not claim time that you weren't actually the acting PIC.

Back to the legality...I said if you were rated in the airplane (category, class, and if appropriate, type), you could log the time as sole manipulator. I also said you don't need the 135 checks at all to do this. This is true, HOWEVER: you must pass your 135 checks in order to manipulate the controls in the first place.

Your specific question is if you can be a rated SIC (rated in the airplane) and still log PIC legally. Yes, you may. Should you...again, up to you, but be sure you don't hold that time out as PIC to a certificate holder, because it will make you look bad. As a rated SIC, you can log the time as PIC if you wish. You can only do it as sole manipulator, and can only be sole manipulator if you are qualified to manipulate the controls in this case, under Part 135...your SIC checks, at a minimum, must be complete.

People get wrapped around the axle over the differences between logging PIC and acting as PIC. These are very different subjects, and shouldn't be confused.

Remember too that under the regulation, it's the certificate holder that designates the PIC before the flight, and the PIC remains the PIC throughotu the flight. Some pilots try to switch back and forth every other leg, and you can do that as manipulator of the controls...but the PIC remains the PIC, even if you're swapping legs. Sometimes pilots are under the mistaken impression that if they call themselves "cocaptains," they alternate being PIC every leg. In a 121 or 135 operation, this doesn't happen. You can still log it legally as PIC, but unless you're the designated PIC, that's as far as it goes.

Pilotyip is worth listening to on the subject; his advice here is strictly practical. He does the hiring and interviewing at his company, which includes light jets and big jets, and he sees a lot of people come and go. He's giving it to you straight from the horses mouth, as one who is sitting in the hiring seat, and makes the decisions that he's described. He's telling it to you as a benifit; you'll do well to listen.

 

[400pilot]

That's one of the best responses I've ever read on here......

BTW, I'm with PilotYip here. As someone who was once involved in the hiring at a 135 outfit (across the field from PilotYip), I did not want to here about "logged PIC". It meant nothing and carried no weight. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, there are no 121 operators that even accept PIC time when you weren't/aren't the aircraft commander. So really, what's the point? Is it ego? Many 91 operations do care about this as well.......

JMHO

 

[pilotyip]

If someone really wants PIC time go someplace you can get PIC time. There are tons of jobs out there that will get you great PIC time. Places were you sit in the left seat, sign for the airplane, and have the guy in the right seat say, "What do you want do to now Captain?". The PIC discussed here may be FAA legal PIC time, but it is worthless in defining your skills as a PIC, you don't sign for the airplane, you don't make the PIC decisions.

 

[fr8r]

I've read the thread, and it's the same old tired comments, virtually every one of which is wrong.

First of all, opinion is irrelevant. The poster asked a regulatory question. Simply put, if the poster is rated in the aircraft, does he need any 135 checks at all to log time in the airplane NO!!! He does not.

Logging PIC, and acting as PIC are entirely different subjects. You do not need to be the PIC, to log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls. This is not disputable, and is clearly spelled out in the regulation, as well as numerous legal interpretations.

Now, as far as your own "legal interpretation," I get the awful feeling that you spoke to someone at the FSDO level and came away with what you thought was an answer. Bottom line here; if that answer came from the FSDO level, even from your POI, it has no weight and no merit beyond a personal opinion. It's not defensible, you can never hold it up to scrutiny or in defense of your actions, and the Administrator doesn't recognize it, nor support it.

If that interpretation came from the regional or chief legal counsel, that's another matter...but as it disagrees with the FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations, it would appear you got a personal observation at the lower levels.

Are you legal to log the time? Yes. Should you? That's really up to you. If you're applying to a certificate holder then you will need to be sure to separate the times, and not claim time that you weren't actually the acting PIC.

I did not say that I got someones opinion. I said that I got a legal interpretation. Also, the legal interpretation is exactly what you are arguing. Also, co-captain is not a legal term in aviation. It is a fluffed up term for a type rated FO and looks good on a resume. I have never heard of anyone calling themself a co-captain for any other reason.

 

[coolarrow]

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).

 

[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?