299 line check

[t-bone]

pic

It's my understanding that if it's a 135 leg, you need all three boxes checked (293, 297 and 299) to log PIC, even if you're the SIC that's flying that leg. If it's a 91 leg, all you need is to be typed and current.

Simply being typed and current is not enough to sign as PIC on a 135 leg, therefore it's not enough to log it either.

 

[StarHustler]

T-bone,

I agree, in my case, I have the 293, 297, and 299, checked as PIC on my 8410. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that he already has the 293 and 297 checked but maybe not the 299.

 

[fr8r]

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.[/QUOTE]

There is no SIC portion of a 299. The 299 only checks the line captain. Also, I don't see a box for 299 anywhere on the 8410. The 299 has to be done in an aircraft on an actual flight. It's pretty damn confusing. What I have been told is that 61.51 provides no need for a 299 to log PIC. Anyhow, thanks for any input.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

(the company acutally calls me a 'co-capt' but I am paid and treated as an F.O.).

And there is your first problem right there....

 

[pilotyip]

The real question here why are you logging PIC time? Is it for your next job. How do you explain to the interviewer at the next job, being paid F/O pay and logging PIC? Even though it might be legal on part 61 as "sole Ma" on a part 91 leg, you are not the PIC. You are signing for the airplane? If not then you are not making PIC desicions about the operation of the airplane. That makes it bogus PIC time, much SIC time in a Baron. BTW a 299 check in a King Air meets the 299 requirments of all 135 airplane operated on the company's certificate. So you don't actually need a 299 in the Lear, if you took it another company airplane.

 

[StarHustler]

My 299 was performed in the acutal a/c in flight. While there is no 'pic/sic' box, there is a 299 box on the far right top corner of my 8410. Under 'Pilot' the FAA examiner wrote 'PIC/SIC', therefore, differentiating the type of check conducted.

The 'Co-Capt' moniker is just a marketing handle used by management (all of our pilots are 'Captain' rated). I am indeed qualified to be a Captain, but since there is only one on our plane at a time and the other guy has been here for a lot longer than me, he is it. I am comfortable and correct in how I log my PIC time (with the caveat of 'sole man' clearly outlined under remarks in my logbook). This shows that I am indeed flying the a/c but not signing for it. Legal and easily identified for any interviewing party.

 

[NoPax]

My 299 was performed in the acutal a/c in flight. While there is no 'pic/sic' box, there is a 299 box on the far right top corner of my 8410. Under 'Pilot' the FAA examiner wrote 'PIC/SIC', therefore, differentiating the type of check conducted.

The 'Co-Capt' moniker is just a marketing handle used by management (all of our pilots are 'Captain' rated). I am indeed qualified to be a Captain, but since there is only one on our plane at a time and the other guy has been here for a lot longer than me, he is it. I am comfortable and correct in how I log my PIC time (with the caveat of 'sole man' clearly outlined under remarks in my logbook). This shows that I am indeed flying the a/c but not signing for it. Legal and easily identified for any interviewing party.

Very good.

I log SIC time, when flying with a senior captain, and put PF or PNF in the comment section...because I'm the SIC, and I'm not making the decisions.

The PF/PNF shows when I'm flying/manipulating the controls, vs your Pretending I'm in Charge time.

 

[StarHustler]

Whaterver works for you buddy...

 

[fr8r]

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.

 

[pilotyip]

Bogus time

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 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.