Flight Hours and FAA/Airlines

[STLCFII]

I was wondering for down the road if the FAA or the airlines looks into your hours at all when you go our for 135/121 jobs ? (By looking I mean trying to get in contact with all your students) The reason I'm asking is because I've given a lot of dual to a hand full of students who have all either stopped flying, put it on hold, or switched schools and I don't have their contact info anymore. Mainly I guess what I'm asking is if they go back check to see if everything is legit? Knowing I didn't sign their checkride forms and didn't even solo some of them I doubt they'll have anything on record that I flew with these students. If anyone can help I'd appreciate it, I've been worried about it ever since I was doing some hangar talking and someone told me they looked back and would yank peoples tickets if everything didn't check out! (Is that true that they do that) Thanks a lot for any help! Hopefully you guys can lower my heart rate!

 

[LAXSaabdude]

You will have to present your logbooks to the FAA for your ATP application, and of course you will need them for an interview, but for the most part, I think they are just looking for any glaring errors or inconsistencies. I have never heard of an instance where an interviewer or an FAA inspector tried to check with past students to verify hours.

I did hear a story one time about a pilot who was going for his CFI or ATP (or some other ride where the FAA looked at his logbooks), and the FAA inspector took note of some of the tail numbers. FAA inspector casually asked, "So, you flew (insert tail number) airplane a few times, how did you like that?" Student says "Yeah, I flew it a few times, nice plane!" FAA inspector says "Yeah, I like it too, it's my plane!". Turns out the pilot had been sitting around the airport and recording N numbers of airplanes he saw on the ramp in his logbook to pad his hours.

True story or urban legend, I don't know. The lesson, though, is that as long as everything in your logbook is valid, you should have no worries.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[SDdriver]

When I went for my type in the shorts the FAA person went through my logbook while the Dir of Training did my oral. She picked through it and took out some hours which I had logged in a King Air as SIC, due to insurance req that the company being flown needed. She didn't accept those hours and so she deducted them from my total hours for the type. I kept the hours, but she didn't accept them. Anyway, she asked about a couple of the airplanes I had flown, like the Baron, she asked, why do you have and how did you get 150 hours in the Baron without working for it. I told her the truth, that I flew it for a owner that wanted me to fly his plane for him while he conducted business in the back with associates during the trip. She said ok thats cool. She was just wondering if I was lieing about that time, since it wasn't 135. It was all 91. Anyway, don't worry to much about it. They won't look that hard I don't think, or at least that has been my expereince. If you flew the hours then you are ok. Just don't lie! Good luck dude..

SD

 

[Ty Webb]

That FAA person was exactly right, and you are lucky they didn't "tear you a new one".

First of all, logging time in an aircraft as SIC is covered thoroughly in 61.55 so if you were logging time as SIC in a single-pilot aircraft because of "insurance requirements" then you were logging it contrary to regulations you had at your fingertips.

Second, if you were logging time in a Baron, or any other aircraft, as PIC, the regs specify that you are familiar with the Limitations, Normal, Abnormal and Emergency operating procdures, etc. Could you speak knowlegeably about the systems, limitations, fuel capacities, engine start limitations, emergency memory items, etc?

Sounds to me like you got off lucky, If that stuff came up during an interview at a reputable company (logging PIC time in an airplane that you weren;t knowlegeable on) the interview would be over right there.

 

[SDdriver]

As far as the baron went I was very familiar with the aircraft and systems. I could have answered any questions she had and she did have a few. As far as the B200 and the Baron I had recieved SIC 135 training on both so I could be a legal SIC under the 135 certificate. The only reason she didn't accept the SIC 200 time is because it was insurance req not aircraft req. I was well covered in all aspects, I wouldn't have went into that half cocked. Believe me I was well asdivsed before I got to that stage and had proper training. I flew that baron 91 after recieveing 135 training in the Baron at a charter company, so I was well versed and completley qualified to fly any baron that i was put in. It really doesn't matter in a sense, cause I got my multi in a baron and I was qualified to fly any light twin just as anyone else that has a multi is. There is no difference just because it is multi, it is the same as having a single ticket and getting it in a 172 and the going and flying a 182. No big deal, just because it is a multi doesn't make a difference, if you get your multi in a baron then go to a dutchess you just need a check out and you are good to go. You don't need any specific training like Flight Saftey or school just to go from a baron to a dutchess or a seminole or such. The flying was conducted under FAR 91 so I didn't need any specific training besides a check out for insurance. That is the point I was trying to make. Take care..

SD

 

[Ty Webb]

Sounds like you were qualified in the airplane . . . . but there are an awful lot of guys logging time in airplanes that they don't come anywhere near meeting the requirements to be familiar with the thinkgs I listed earlier. . . . so I hope they see the point I am trying to make.

Note that I never said you had to attend formal training for the aircraft (under 91) only that you must be "familiar" with the items I listed.

Good luck to you and all.

 

[SDdriver]

That is a very good point and you are very correct!! There are a lot of guys doing that and they really need to pay attention to what you said and I said so they can be ready for when the day comes that the FAA eagle eyes their logbook. Like you said, if you have flown it then you better know about it so you can be ready for any questions so you can CYA...Very good point Ty..Take care..

SD

 

[350DRIVER]

First of all, logging time in an aircraft as SIC is covered thoroughly in 61.55 so if you were logging time as SIC in a single-pilot aircraft because of "insurance requirements" then you were logging it contrary to regulations you had at your fingertips.

Ty,

We have guys doing the same thing and the local fsdo is aware of it. You are correct with regards to the aircraft however IF the ops specs/insurance require a 135 qualified SIC onboard then you can "legally" log the time as SIC regardless of whether or not the aircraft requires one. You just may not be able to count it towards the atp ticket depending on the inspector (this will vary depending on how the inspector views it)- most will allow you to count it though..... He did not get off "lucky" at all, sounds like he was completely correct and inspector had own opinion pertaining to this.... No regulations have been broken by this practice and if you study the 135 regs. the company can/does "assign" a qualified SIC there for that person can/does log it as SIC time and will have no problems other than some inspector not allowing you to count it towards the atp, nothing more and nothing less can come about from doing it this way.


I have researched this topic to death since when I was a "qualified" sic I refused to believe that you were "legally'' able to log it as SIC time so I didn't but I found out (through plenty of research and speaking to many senior inspectors) I was wrong and I missed logging many many flight hours due to myself being nieve and stubborn to the issue. If I could go back I would have logged plenty of "legal" SIC hours in the planes when I was acting as sic since my company assigns a "qualified" part 135 sic on EVERY flight that is dispatched. If only I could do things over again.....


It is clear as day and night when the ops specs. require a SIC to be onboard= simply log it as SIC time whenever you are acting and designated by your company as "SIC"- no regulations are broken and no enforcement action will ever be taken by the FAA.

I only wish I would have researched this early on and did not "buy" into the whole "you can't log it cause airplane does not require a sic"- that was wrong.....

Sounds to me like you got off lucky, If that stuff came up during an interview at a reputable company (logging PIC time in an airplane that you weren;t knowlegeable on) the interview would be over right there.

We have had plenty of guys interview elsewhere and this "sic" question came up "0" times since they had the 135 company flight check form. This is not as big of a deal as some make it out to be. YOU simply state and explain and show that you are "qualified" here is my SIC check ride form, company ops specs required me onboard as well as insurance, assigned duties/got paid as SIC and no questions will be asked.

I have not met one inspector that "proved" or showed any evidence that this way was "incorrect"...


cheers

3 5 0

 

[350DRIVER]

side note as follows...

IF you did 135 training and have a checkride then decided to go fly same aircraft that you are/were qualified under part "91" and continue to log it as "sic" then you will most likely encounter a problem at some point down the line since then there is no ops specs. or no company that is "assigning" you the duties of "SIC" so you are not "required" onboard and the aircraft's single pilot type certificate is the deciding factor which means no sic time could be logged. In this instance you will probably be setting yourself up for trouble but as long as this scenario is not present then doing this under part 135 "IF" ops specs/insurance require you and you are "assigned" that duty by your company then you are golden and won't have any problems.

just for the record


3 5 0

 

[ACWild]

As far as the FAA is concerned, your logbook is a legal document. That's why you sign each page. Unless you are obviously padding time, there's no reason to verify your hours.

if you have flown it then you better know about it so you can be ready for any questions so you can CYA

I'll have to admit that I've forgotten almost everything about the planes that I've flown in the past. I can't tell you much about the Baron that I flew for my ATP, the various Cessnas, Pipers, Beeches, etc. If a fed asks me about the Saab, which I'm typed in, I could answer alot of questions now, but as time goes by, that knowledge is going to slip away too, but no one is going to let me fly a Saab unless I get current in it.

It's very unrealistic to expect someone to retain knowledge of aircraft that they haven't seen or flown in years. The feds know it and most interviewers know it too. An aircraft that you're supposed to be current in is another story...

 

[WrightAvia]

At an interview for a large regional with jet operations, the assistant chief pilot paged through my log book by flipping through pages, getting up to talk on a cell phone, sitting down and flipping through the pages in my log book, getting up to talk on a cell phone, sitting down and flipping through the pages in my log book, back on the cell phone. I almost thought the guy was doing this all on purpose to try to tick me off. He asked a few questions, "why do you want to be an airline pilot?" and "how did you get all the multi time?". After that it was "good luck on the sim eval and we'll try to get you in!"

No technical questions about the aircraft, no systems questions, no 135 or 91 FAR questions, no hypothetical "what if your captain comes to work with the smell of booze on his breath?" questions, no how far apart are runway edge light questions. None of that. They did give like a 50 question written technical evaluation, but you'd almost have had to be ag pilot to goof that up.

 

[Hawker rider]

Can somebody please enlighten me why somebody would log SIC time in a single pilot airplane?? Sure the airlines are going to have a little laugh when they see a logbook like that.

I just don't et it, I can see going flying just for the flying part of it, but to start logging that for building hours...... I would much rather gain experience!! besides building hours that way.

M

 

[STLCFII]

Hey Guys, thanks for all the replies and information for the future. It sounds like mostly they look at the big things like Multi time and SIC time when going through you log book not 172 time since everyone can get that everywhere. Can you guys tell me if that is right? I'm not padding my time but just worried about if they try to contact people I've given dual to in a 172 but have quit and I don't have anything about them except their name in my logbook as who I gave the Dual to. Thanks, if you guys can verify my understanding above I'd appreciate it!

 

[SDdriver]

Well as far as why would someone log SIC time in a single pilot airplane,

Well ok here is a situation,

I work for a 135 charter company, I am hired to fly right seat in all the twin props cause they have to have an SIC because of insurance reasons or the flight cant go. THey pay me 175 a day and put me through a FAA certified SIC training program on those airplanes. I go on a flight in a B200 with a PIC and paxs in the back. Should I just sit there and do my co-pilot duties and also fly some of the flight and not log it?? No way, I am going to log it how it should be logged. I am flying as a legal co-pilot and I should log the time. IT goes to toal time in multi and total time aircraft and it goes in my SIC section. Why should you do all of that flying and not logg it. WHy would the airlines laugh at you for logging that time when it is perfectly legal to logg it.

How about the people flying the Metros? THat can be a single pilot airplane, but they fly them with FOs should those FO's just fly all that time and not logg it?? If you have been through an SIC training program and you are qualified to fly the plane from the right seat then there is no reason not to logg it.

STLCFII.

I wouldn't worry about the FAA calling or attempting to call all of those people. I doubt very seriously they do that. When I was grilled by that FAA person, I didn't even have my first logg book, it was lost in one of my moves and it had all my single engine time and some multi, it totaled about 700hrs of my flying time and all I had was my current logg book which had most all my multi time and my advanced ratings in it. They didn't even bother with asking me about the other book. Don't oever worry yourself with that, just kind of deal with it when the time comes and I doubt you will have any problems. If they do give you some problems, just be honest and up front with them and tell them the situation, chances are you won't have a problem and they will understand.

Good Luck!

SD

 

[Ty Webb]

Guys, you are mixing two very different types of operations.

Read 61.55 It specifically refers to an SIC "required by the aircraft type certificate, or the type of operation".

Under Part 91, in an aircraft type-certificated for a single pilot (like a BE200) the ONLY way to log SIC time is as a safety pilot, period. An insurance policy requirement doesn not mena squat, except to the insurance company.

Under Part 135, a SIC can be used (and log it as such) if the person has complied with the requirements of 135.343, 135.345 and 135.347.


As for a Citation SP, my understanding is that the PIC is operating under an authorization to fly it single pilot, and only if all required SP items are operating and the PIC is current to use the SP authorization, He can waive using that authorization and allow you to log SIC time under Part 91.

And the single-pilot Metro operation? Under 135, a SIC is required in any aircraft carrying passengers that has more than 9 pax seats installed, period. There is no such thing as a single-pilot 135 Metro in pax carrying operations. Freight is different.

 

[SDdriver]

Sorry I meant to say it was freight in the Metro I was talking about. I know paxs is different.

SD

 

[scubabri]

What about logging it as dual recieved, PIC under part 61 if the pilot is a MEI?

I'm sure that someone will probably balk at it in an interview, but for the requirements of meeting total time for FAA certificates, it's perfectly legal.

On a side note, the logbook is not a legal document. The FAR's only require that you log the time required for cerificates, recency and currency requirements. The rest is just to show your experience to whomever wants to see it.

Granted if you are using it to get your ATP, then it needs to be acurate and truthful, but beyond that, I can find no reference about it being a "legal document" requiring a signature on the bottom.

b

 

[Ty Webb]

A few hours of aircraft familiarizaion is one thng, a few hundred is another.

When a prospective employer finds a questionable entry, it makes the rest of your time seem suspect, as well.

 

[scubabri]

hehe.. yah.. I'm sure 500 hours of dual recieved would raise some eyebrows

b

 

[ACWild]

Sorry guys, I don't mean that a logbook is a legally required document, but my logbooks have and entry on the bottom corner that states, "I certify that the entries in this log are true," and a place to put my signature. In my opinion, it would look supicious if I don't sign it, so I've signed every page that I filled. I believe signing a statement like that makes it a legal document, but I'm no lawyer.