299 line check

[brokeflyer]

do whatever you want. If your gonna have attitude then I'm not gonna bother to help answer your questions.

 

[avbug]

If you really want the correct answer then call your local FSDO and talk to the POI assigned to your outfit. FAA inspectors interpret the regs as diffrently as everyone else. You need to know what YOUR poi wants and go with that.

An inspector at the FSDO does not have the authority to interpret regulation, and never did. For one who claimed to work there, you should know this.

The only authorities entitled to interpret the regulation on behalf of the Administrator in any official capacity are the Regional and Chief Legal Counsel(s).

The regulation is provided and interpreted from the Code of Federal Regulation, Federal Register preambles, and then by reference to the Chief Legal Counsel interpretations.

Whatever you get at the FSDO is worth nothing more than one man's opinion, and isn't defensible in court or administrative proceedings...even if it's given in writing. Why? Because the FSDO level doesn't have the authority to interpret the regulation.

More to the point, the interpretation of that which is presently under discussion has already been provided by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel, ad infinitum...there's nothing to debate.

 

[brokeflyer]

it appears that no one understood my post.

Just go get a .299 and be done with it.

 

[fr8r]

do whatever you want. If your gonna have attitude then I'm not gonna bother to help answer your questions.

You haven't answered any. I answered it myself by seeking sources outside of this silly forum. Read my previous posts and those of "avbug." It seems we are the only 2 on this whole forum who can think in the capacity required to speak of this subject.

 

[brokeflyer]

whatever lol

 

[727Niteflyer]

You haven't answered any. I answered it myself by seeking sources outside of this silly forum. Read my previous posts and those of "avbug." It seems we are the only 2 on this whole forum who can think in the capacity required to speak of this subject.

lol and you guys dont have a clue of what your talking about. but you sure have the egos. to bad probably most of your time is false. good luck.

 

[fr8r]

lol and you guys dont have a clue of what your talking about. but you sure have the egos. to bad probably most of your time is false. good luck.

That's even funnier.

 

[B737Dvr]

give me a break already.....

Not only has the horse been beaten beyond death, but we are now onto his grandchildren.

All I know is that if a pilot comes to me with 1000PIC hours logged in his logbook and he is applying for a captain job that requires 1000 hours of 135 PIC experience, and then I go and dig and find out that those 1000 hours logged were under the faa allowances of sole-manipulator, and he was a company designated SIC for all flights, he will get kicked out of my office so fast that I might actually forget about the experience of having my time wasted.

People will do what they want, it is up to management to distill quality from quantity for the best candidate.

 

[avbug]

All I know is that if a pilot comes to me with 1000PIC hours logged in his logbook and he is applying for a captain job that requires 1000 hours of 135 PIC experience, and then I go and dig and find out that those 1000 hours logged were under the faa allowances of sole-manipulator, and he was a company designated SIC for all flights, he will get kicked out of my office so fast that I might actually forget about the experience of having my time wasted.

People will do what they want, it is up to management to distill quality from quantity for the best candidate.

This is where the topic of what's correct per the regulation ends, and the "can you?" discussion ends in favor of the "should you?" moral quandry.

It's best known as "where the rubber meets the road."

The legality of it bears no arguement, and has no room for discussion, and it's plainly spelled out. The practical application of the logbook, on the other hand, is as varied as the company to which one applies...and there's no way to predict who will view the flight experience as what. Accordingly, the breakdown of time comes in the form of the job application itself, not in the form of the logbook.

One cannot spend an entire career logging time tailored to one potential employer down the line; one should log in accordance with the regulation, and then break down one's time on the job application per the specific employer's needs.

As stated before, I've had some companies to which I've applied who considered my four engine piston time the same as a Cessna 172...they lumped all piston in together. Now there's a big difference between a large four engine bomber, which requires a type rating, and a little single engine Cessna...but they don't see it any differently. Am I going to lump them in together in my logbook? Of course not. But I will break them down on a job application according to the policies set by the employer.

Likewise, what one employer considers experience, another does not. One cannot fail by adhering to the regulation in one's log. After all, it's the regulation that prescribes what must go in the log, and what may and may not go in there. If one needs further clarification or division for a particular employer, then one should address that issue on one's resume, and in one's application forms.

 

[pilotyip]

one of the world's greatest lies. "There are no false entries in my logbook"