Corporate or Merlin Air?

[Lonestar]

100LL-

I know you're not bustin' my chops on this issue and yes, I know that people can find creative ways to log their time. You are right, someone CAN LEGALLY log PIC in an aircraft over 12500 (if they are typed) but as you alluded to - this is chicken shlt time. I have a hard time believing that any self respecting 135 captain would log only SIC as the PNF while his snotty nosed, 400 hr, bought his window seat PFT right-seater was logging PIC on his legs. As I said earlier...there can only be one captain.

 

[SquirrelDog]

Lonestar

I heard that!!!

nice post Lonstar,

Squirreldog

 

[Trout]

Because usually the only ones who support, condone or can even stomach the fact that some people would even consider PFT are those that did it themselves.

Where in my orginal post did I "support, condone or can even stomach" anything? I wrote what I've experienced. The people I know who have PFT'd have done very well for themselves. I also know people who have not PFT'd and are also flying for a major. Is this a contradication? If I PFT'd shouldn't I bash the non-PFT'ers? Because I obviously support, condone, and stomach (how dramatic) PFT.

 

[Trout]

Fair enough. And I despise PFT like most reasonable minded pilots.

 

[Lonestar]

Now...don't ya'll feel better?

 

[100LL... Again!]

Lonestar-

Just to bat the point back and forth a little more (I'm bored)

The 'real' Captain ALWAYS logs PIC, and the postman always rings twice.

You are 100% correct that it is chicken s--t time. I would never log SIC-PF time as PIC even if type rated. The point was you could, according to a reg loophole. No airline would hopefully ever look at it seriously.

In other words, yes, there can only be one captain (the 'aircraft commander, to use a military term), BUT! ther can be two pilots LOGGING PIC. One SERVING, one logging as Sole Manipulator.
(Wasn't that James Brown's nickname? Or was it Godfather of soul?)

A new twist on this based on something I read recently, but can't remember where:

In actual, the REAL PIC ccan always log actual IFR. The SIC can log it on legs where they are PF. This makes sese, since at this level of operation, it is not the 'manipulating that is at isssue, rather than who is monitoring and managing the aircraft.

What is your opinion on this:

Logging PIC as the flying pilot when really SIC FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of meeting an insurance requirement.

I say go for it! These insurance companies don't know crap about what it ytakes to be a good pilot. I will go to the limit of the regs to beat this hurdle, since it is LEGAL, and I don't think the companies understand this or care, ESPECIALLY since no one 'signs' for the aircraft like, at an airline.

Awaiting your response with baited breath (or breath that smells like bait)

100LL

 

[Lonestar]

100LL

I can see your point and at one time I might have agreed with you(back when I would do anything for flight time) but now I see things much differently. I still don't see where a loophole in the regs can allow two people in the same cockpit on a revenue flight to log PIC at the same time (even if the SIC is the PF and is typed). I know some people do it but I don't see how it is legal. Regarding logging PIC for the sole purpose of insurance requirements: I wouldn't EVER put anything in my logbook that I was not 100% ready to back up in an investigation or an interview. Remember, your logbook is a legal document and one that you will have to live with for the rest of your career.

I don't mean to be a jacka$$...just my opinion.

 

[100LL... Again!]

You missed my point.

Suppose I work for a corporate flight department, typed in the a/c but hired as an 'FO'.

The regs say I can log as PIC my PF legs. I've asked numerous feds about it and they agree. It is different than 135 or 121 because no one signs for the aircraft, so no one is DESIGNATED (FAR definition) as the PIC. You BET I would consider it PIC for the purposes of insurance (unless I was such a complete lamebrain that I didn't deserve to log it that way cause I couldn't fly worth beans).

I would be 100% willing to back up this type of logging to an insurance company. An airline? No. Their standard is different and I accept that.

 

[Lonestar]

Umm...ok.

 

[hopeful]

If you have no ambition and don't care about honestly defending your logbook, then it would probably be Ok to log PIC time when you are riding around in the right seat. Otherwise, you probably shouldn't log it.

The reason i say "riding around in the right seat" is:


The guy in the left seat is probably acting as the PIC of the aircraft. (I.E. making the decisions)

 

[100LL... Again!]

------------------------------------------------
If you have no ambition and don't care about honestly defending your logbook, then it would probably be Ok to log PIC time when you are riding around in the right seat. Otherwise, you probably shouldn't log it.

The reason i say "riding around in the right seat" is:


The guy in the left seat is probably acting as the PIC of the aircraft. (I.E. making the decisions)
------------------------------------------------



I think that the word you meant to use in your slam is
'integrity', not 'ambition'.

'Riding' around in the right seat? Not making decisions? I wonder why you assume that the person in the right seat doesn't make decisions. Experience perhaps?

Just FYI, several agents in the insurance industry have told me that logging time this way is a completely acceptable practice. I would NEVER suggest trying to use this type of time to qualify for a 121 position. But the insurance requirements have become so unreasonable that any advantage that can be reasonably taken must be. And remember - in part 91 ops there is no release designating a PIC. Additionally, many corporate operators use co-captains. Should one of them nevr log PIC just because they were the second one to be hired? I guess you guys would be willing to trust yourselves to the logic and benevolence of an underwriter who has never flown an aircraft. SOme are intelligent, some not. Just like pilots.

 

[hopeful]

I think that the word you meant to use in your slam is
'integrity', not 'ambition'.

Nope, ambition is exactly what I meant. If you have no ambition of continuing up the food chain in aviation then log it how you want. If you ever want to be competitive for any airline or flying job other than part 91, you better pay attention to what you are doing.

I would NEVER suggest trying to use this type of time to qualify for a 121 position

How are you planning to justify your logbook if you end up interviewing at a Part 121 carrier? You can't hide your logbook from them.

 

[wookiehasbeen]

the way i see it, you would have to be an idiot to pay for training in a industry like this, especially after 9/11. if you have companies like UPS, who are furghloughing after making 4 billion profit, then you can see that the almighty salaries of the past are just that, a thing of the past. if you have the money to PFT do your self a favor and go back to school and make enough money to buy an airplane and pay to make someone else's life miserable.

 

[wookiehasbeen]

dont pay for training

it is a waste of money, if you have enough money to pay for training go back to school and do somthing useful with your life.