co-capt. logging time

[Seadogrun]

In the past I've gotten type ratings and flew as captain. My most recent type is in an airplane that I will primarily be a right seater that gets to fly every other leg.

How do you all log time like this?

I'm wondering if it's ethecal to log PIC for legs I actually fly?

 

[svcta]

Type rated? Actually flying? dam right.

 

[stupidpilot]

In the past I've gotten type ratings and flew as captain. My most recent type is in an airplane that I will primarily be a right seater that gets to fly every other leg.

How do you all log time like this?

I'm wondering if it's ethecal to log PIC for legs I actually fly?

Most companies only accept PIC time if you are actually the aircraft commander. If the other guy is senoir to you and is assigned as PIC then you are not supposed to count your stick time as PIC.

 

[svcta]

is this a part 91 department? How large? What's the culture like? I'd still be logging that. You're typed and actually flying. It's to the letter of the law.

 

[Bandit60]

Most companies only accept PIC time if you are actually the aircraft commander. If the other guy is senoir to you and is assigned as PIC then you are not supposed to count your stick time as PIC.

By regulation....if you are type rated for that aircraft and you are sole manipulator of the controls then you can log PIC

What a specific company wants to see is total different then what is legal to log, and his question is can he log it.

 

[southernpilot]

If you are typed, current, and assuming you are held resposible for any "problems" with the Fed's; then log P.I.C.
Manipulating or not, when you get that letter, both pilots now days are held resposible for the flight, so you might as well log the time you are entitled to. Believe me, they will come after both of you.

 

[skyaddict]

Your legs are *definitely* loggable as PIC according to the FAA logging regs, as defined by part 61. However, except when you are signing for the aircraft, it definitely can *not* be represented as PIC as defined by Part 1, which is what most employers who require a minimum of turbine PIC specify- namely the person signing for the aircraft (even though the SIC is still held responsible in a 2-person operation). Therefore, just be careful to never misrepresent SIC legs as part 1 PIC time... but by all means log it as part 61 PIC, while highlighting on any application (even if only via a footnote) that it is in accordance with Part 61, not Part 1.

 

[Seadogrun]

Thanks. Ths is a two aircraft, two crew(yes two aircraft with only two crew total) small part 91 operation.

I did realize the part 1 and part 61 differences, but was wondering if most logged PIC part 1 only or Logged pic under part 61 which seems a little flakey, but don't see a major problem with it.
Thanks for you replies.

 

[SCT]

We have all type rated PICs in our department and we rotate being captian on trips. We also switch seats every other leg or day, what ever is most convenient on that particuliar trip.

I personally log all of the time in my logbook as PIC. Mainly, to simplify everything. (I don't log the landings unless I am PF, though) I guess if I was ever crazy enough to apply for a 121 job, I would have to go back and break everything out as PIC/ SIC....but hopefully that day will never come.

Cheers-

 

[ttflyer]

However, except when you are signing for the aircraft, it definitely can *not* be represented as PIC as defined by Part 1, which is what most employers who require a minimum of turbine PIC specify- namely the person signing for the aircraft...


I always love seeing this. Who "SIGNED" for the aircraft? I guess SWA wants to know. I carry the keys to our aircraft on the same key chain as my house keys. I never "sign" for anything. I get in, light it and point it. Of course at my company, I'm almost always "senior" so I log it all as PIC. SWA can try and prove me wrong, but I hope I never have to give them the chance. Besides the airlines, does anyone really care if you have 3000 or 6000 PIC? Are they really going to do full leg by leg logbook audit?

 

[Daytonaflyer]

I keep a second column called "Type 2 PIC" in my logbook software. I log all time like that both as PIC and Type 2 PIC, that way I can easily subtract the difference between the two if required by a potential employer.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

In the past I've gotten type ratings and flew as captain. My most recent type is in an airplane that I will primarily be a right seater that gets to fly every other leg.

How do you all log time like this?

I'm wondering if it's ethecal to log PIC for legs I actually fly?

If you have to ask doesn't that answer the question?

 

[Seadogrun]

If you have to ask doesn't that answer the question?

No, I don't think that me asking answers the question. It's a new situation for me so I just wanted some opinions. I take it your opinion is no and I respect that.

 

[sleepy]

I only log PIC when my name is on the flight plan.

 

[T-DOGGIN]

If both Pilots are typed then the one dispatched as PIC can log it as well as the one who is the sole manipulator of the flight controls. IE if co-pilot flys all of the legs (and is typed) then both Pilots can log the time as PIC.

 

[Daveman]

I keep a second column called "Type 2 PIC" in my logbook software. I log all time like that both as PIC and Type 2 PIC, that way I can easily subtract the difference between the two if required by a potential employer.

you're joking, right?

 

[skyaddict]

I know, signing in the digital age is just an expression... "signed", "acted as PIC", "was final authority responsible for the flight", yada yada, you get the idea. And as has also been pointed out in previous threads, when push comes to shove, anyone can log anything they want in their logbook (I have known pilots who choose to log all time on an IFR flight plan as IMC- whatever) and it's not "illegal" per se. I can go out in a C172 (or for that matter MS Flight Sim) and log it in my Jepp logbook as PIC Concorde or Space Shuttle. It's only a *potential* legal and/or ethical issue if one is representing it as time for the purposes of FAA requirements, and/or to an interviewer or application sheet, which is why if there is a potential issue, it can make sense to clarify the definition of PIC- to avoid being accused or rejected simply because someone thinks you are trying to pull a fast one, even if you are not.

Occasonally the FAA toyed with the idea of aligning the "logging" and "acting" definitions of PIC, but the two are such different definitons and the history of those two very different definitions is so entrenched, that to do so would have created more logging hassles than it would have saved. So the idea has never been seriously pursued, and the two definitions (part 1 and part 61) remain completely distinct.

 

[snow-back]

Who has final authority over the conduct of the flight? Who will the FAA speak with first in the event of an accident or incident? Just because you're the sole manipulator of the controls, doesn't mean your the acting PIC. Log what you want, but unless you've been designated as PIC by whoever in your company has authority to do so (maybe the co-captain for that flight), you should be logging SIC time.

FYI, my company has everyone typed and all the flying is done from the left seat. Regardless of who's flying, the acting PIC is the person listed as such at the time of dispatch.

 

[alaskaborn]

Seems to me that if I'm in the left seat, sole manipulator, with a type rating, the FAA is going to come after me in the event of an incident, accident, inquiry, even if the other guy in the cockpit has more time and is designated by our insurance as PIC. I'm logging all of my left seat time as PIC and right seat time as "company required SIC". I don't log t/o and landings when I'm right seat and I don't log IMC time over there either. I have a seperate column for PIC turbine so I can drop it down to that figure if my total turbine is ever questioned. Maybe it's overkill, but I think this way, I'd be able to go back and answer how I justified the time I'm putting in the book.

 

[Seadogrun]

Thanks for everone's responses.